Adema Speech and Thought Belllum 1 - 7

chapter 4
Caesar, Bellum Gallicum 1 and 7
‘Grandir la réputation de César, tel est l’objet évident des Commentaires’.1 Although
Rambaud’s formulation of the goal of Caesar’s works might be a bit blunt, Cae-
sar is indeed portrayed by the narrator of Bellum Gallicum as an efficient and
decisive general. The war in Gaul is presented as a war that needed to be fought
and was fought in an effective way.2 The form of Bellum Gallicum supports these
communicative goals and underlying ideas in many ways.3
This chapter investigates the different forms of speech and thought in Bel-
lum Gallicum. It presents a close reading analysis aimed to disclose ideologies
on war in this work.4 It will be argued that representations of speeches and
thoughts contribute to conveying the underlying idea that war is something
you can control, anticipate, plan and execute efficiently, especially when your
name is Gaius Julius Caesar.
The narrator of Bellum Gallicum is known for his neutral and (seemingly)
objective presentational tone.5 He does not comment on (aspects of) his
1 Rambaud 1966: 245.

2 On the justification of the war in Gaul in Bellum Gallicum, see e.g. Riggsby 2006: 157–189,
who discusses the ‘serious efforts Caesar makes in places to justify his campaigns’.
3 The literature on Caesar’s (manipulative) narrative techniques is vast. The most influ-
ential suggestions and ideas can be found in Schlicher 1936, Rambaud 1966, Mutschler
1975, Görler 1976, Richter 1977. See also Oppermann 1931, Pelling 1981, 2009, 2013,
Mensching 1984, Lohmann 1996, Reijgwart 1993, Barlow 1998, Powell 1998, Lendon
1999, Kroon 2001, Ramage 2003, Busch 2005, Riggsby 2006, Gerlinger 2008, Kraus 2010a,
Choitz 2011. Most of these works discuss the two other main topics concerning Bellum
Gallicum, which are the specific genre of commentarii, e.g. Riggsby 2006: 4–5, 133–134,
and the manner (and time(s)) of composition of these works, e.g. Riggsby 2006: 9–15.
4 Both the form and the functions of speeches and thoughts in Bellum Gallicum have been
the subject of earlier publications. For the forms see Reinhardt 1899, Andrewes 1937,
Hyart 1960, Dangel 1995, Utard 2004a. For functions see Murphy 1949, Rasmussen 1963,
Nordling 1991, Lohmann 1996, James 2000, Kraus 2010b, Tsitsiou-Chelidoni 2010.
5 On the identity and bias of the narrator of Bellum Gallicum, see e.g. Görler 1976, Reijg-
wart 1993. The relation between the characteristics of this narrator and the genre of the
Commentarii is discussed by Riggsby 2006: 151–155. Grillo 2011 discusses the identity of
the narrator in Bellum Civile, illustrating that he is generally omnipresent, omniscient and
non-intrusive, but may also abandon his covert position and use devices like switches of
focalization or inferred motivation.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/9789004347120_005
Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Downloaded from Brill.com11/07/2022 02:22:14PM
via University College London
Caesar, Bellum Gallicum 1 and 7 109
story but lets the events speak for themselves. A recent discourse linguis-
tic and narratological analysis that corroborates the neutral and objective
tone of the Caesarian narrator is presented by Stienaers.6 Stienaers illustrates
that in typical evaluative environments the Caesarian narrator never shows
emotions or other subjective sentiments. The chain of events is typically pre-
sented in present tense forms and at a fast pace. When this chain of events
is disrupted by comments of the narrator, these comments tend to concern
meta-narrative remarks or additional information. The narrative lacks clear
evaluative narratorial comment.
It is, therefore, not easy to get to know the persona of the Caesarian nar-
rator, let alone investigate his attitude to war. However, in this chapter I will
draw some conclusions on his persona, as well as on his attitude to war, basing
myself on his preferences in representing speeches and thoughts that emerge
from the close reading of Bellum Gallicum 1 and 7. His strategies seem to en-
hance the idea that he is omniscient, efficient, decisive and straightforward
and that he considers war, too, an efficient, controllable and rather straight-
forward chain of events. Together, this self-representation of the narrator and
the ideas on war in this narrative contribute to a positive portrayal of Caesar.
4.1 Overview of Representations of Speech and Thought
In the first and seventh book of Bellum Gallicum, 41% of the words are part
of representations of speech and thought (N = 19747).7 Direct speech hardly
occurs in the corpus, direct thought does not occur at all. Direct speech is not
only infrequent in the corpus of this study but also infrequent in Bellum Galli-
cum as a whole, as has been often observed. The nine direct speeches in Bellum
Gallicum form the subject of Rasmussen’s monograph.8 Rasmussen argues that
direct speeches occur at decisive turning points of the narrative.9 As in other
6 Stienaers (in prep.).

7 The word counts in this chapter are based on the text of www.thelatinlibrary.com. Al-
though these numbers might slightly differ from texts such as the OCT or the Teubner
text, they are sufficiently accurate for the word counts, as those are meant to give a rough
indication of the amount of speech and thought representation in books or episodes.
8 Rasmussen 1963. These speeches occur at Caes. Gall.4.25.3 (aquilifer of the tenth legion), 4.8.3-4
(Labienus), 4.35.8-9 (a captive), 5.30.1-2 (Sabinus), 5.44.3 (Pullo), 7.20.8 & 12 (Vercingetorix,
two fragments, part of this corpus), 7.38.2-3 & 6-8 (Litaviccus, two fragments, part of this corpus),
7.50.4, 7.50.6 (Petronius, two fragments, part of this corpus) and 7.77.3-16 (Critognatus, part of
this corpus). None of these directly presented speeches are uttered by Caesar.
9 Entscheidende Wendepunkten, Rasmussen 1963: 20.

110 chapter 4
narratives, direct speeches mean a decrease in pace in Bellum Gallicum and

thus high-light the event of speaking.10
However, I would like to take it one step further in this chapter and will dis-
cuss why the narrator would want to give emphasis to the four direct speeches
in my corpus by means of this specific form. In short, the direct speeches seem
to have in common that their form contributes something to the narrative that
would not have been present in indirect discourse. For instance, the form of
direct speech allows the narratees to draw a conclusion that they could only
draw from the ‘exact’ wording of the characters. Another possibility is that the
direct speech proves, more forcefully than an indirect speech would, an im-
plicit or explicit point of the narrator, for instance the horrifying nature of Cri-
tognatus’ plan, as the narrator points out himself (Caes. Gall.7.77.3-16).
The most common form for speech and thought representations is indirect
discourse in Bellum Gallicum 1 and 7. Indirect discourse, especially the speeches,
is a quite heterogeneous category in this corpus.11 These indirect speeches differ
in length from 2 words to 389 words. More importantly, however, they largely
differ in the extent in which either the deictic centre of the narrator or the de-
ictic centre of the character is used. The variations in the use of these deictic
centres are numerous and a further division into categories seems futile. More-
over, the close readings of book 1 and 7 show that the subtle variations in deic-
tic centres often have effects that are highly specific for their context and that
would be lost in a general discussion on the use of two deictic centres.
In addition to many indirect and mentioned speeches and thoughts, I have
found twelve candidates for an interpretation as free indirect thought. These
sentences are characterized by indicative tense forms but they occur in a con-
text in with other thoughts (mentioned and indirect) and in which, thus, a
thinking character is available. What these instances of possible free indirect
thought have in common is that they represent ideas or opinions with which
both the character and the narrator could agree.12
10 Riggsby 2006: 142 discusses direct speeches as part of his discussion of the genre of Bellum
Gallicum, concluding that “whatever their precise function [..], the direct speeches of De
Bello Gallico are plausibly a characteristic of the commentarius not a departure from it.”
11 Cf. Rasmussen 1963: 63.
12 The possible instances of free indirect thought occur at Caes. Gall. 1.19.2 (Diviciaci- cog-
noverat), 1.33.5 (ipse – videretur), 1.38.3 (namque – facultatem), 1.47.2 (quod – coicerent), 7.8.3
(ne – patuerant), 7.26.2 (propterea quod – tardabat), 7.30.1 (quod – fugerat), 7.30.2 (quod –
cesuerat), 7.40.1 (quos – indulserat), 7.56.2 (cum – timebat), 7.59.5 (namque – distinebat)
and 7.68.3 (quod – pulsi). Most of these are discussed in the close reading sections.

A quantitative overview of types of speech and thought representations is

presented in table 4.1.
table 4.1 Types of representations of speech, thought and writing in Bellum

Gallicum 1 and 7
Instances Sum of words Average length
Speech
Direct speech 7 507 72
Indirect speech 229 5895 26
Mentioned speech 94 317 3
Free indirect speech 0 0 0
Thought
Direct thought 0 0 0
Indirect thought 127 1311 10
Mentioned thought 5 10 2
Free indirect thought 12 192 16
Writing 3 67 22
Total 477 8299 17
Speech and thought representations function in several narrative tech-

niques in this corpus. Together, these narrative techniques seem to con-
tribute to the characterization of Caesar. Representations of speeches
and thoughts may directly characterize Caesar, for instance in the form of
praise by enemies. Efficient forms of speech and thought representations
create a narrative pace that suggests that Caesar is decisive, straightfor-
ward and fast (celeritas). The recurrent anticipation of future events in
Caesar’s thoughts underscores his strategic insight and ability to plan the
war. Messages are a type of speech that narrativize a spatial transition
from one part of the story world in a narrative. These tend to be brought
to Caesar in this corpus, thus contributing to the idea that Caesar is well
informed.
In short, the speech and thought representations in this corpus have
such forms that they contribute to characterizing Caesar as an efficient,
thoughtful, strategic and decisive general, fighting a war that is in his
control.

112 chapter 4
4.2 Close Reading of Speech and Thought

Representations in Bellum Gallicum 1
The first book of Bellum Gallicum narrates the subsequent negotiations and bat-
tles between Caesar and two enemies, viz. the Helvetians and Ariovistus, king
of the Germans. The first part of book 1 (Caes. Gall. 1.1-29) concerns the Helve-
tians’ plans to travel through the Roman province and Caesar’s actions to pre-
vent this. Most representations of speech and thought are found in an episode
about problems with the loyalty of the Haeduans, of which the Haeduan Dum-
norix turns out to be the cause. The speeches and thoughts function to explain
the problems and to present Caesar’s decisions and motives in dealing with
these problems. In other episodes, the speeches and thoughts concern intelli-
gence about threatening actions of the enemies and Caesar’s interpretations of
this intelligence. Furthermore, many speeches are brief commands by Caesar.
The second part of the book (Caes. Gall. 1.30-54) may be further divided
into a phase in which Caesar negotiates with Ariovistus (Caes. Gall. 1.30-47)
and a phase in which he fights him (Caes. Gall. 1.48-54). The latter part con-
tains far less representations of speech and thought than the first phase. The
speeches and thoughts in the war with Ariovistus seem to emphasize Caesar’s
initial attempt to negotiate with Ariovistus, while characterizing the latter as
an opponent with which negotiations are impossible.
In both parts of the book, the speeches and thoughts seem to contribute
to conveying the necessity and inevitability of the fights fought by Romans in
Gaul. At the same time, they portray Caesar as a decisive and swift general who
is in control of this war. The premise of this portrayal is that war is something
that can be controlled and planned.
4.2.1 Gaul and Orgetorix, Caes. Gall. 1.1 -4.3

Bellum Gallicum begins with a world famous overview of Gaul and the peoples
inhabiting it, after which the narrator focuses his attention on the people with
which the first battles will be fought, the Helvetians (Apud Helvetios …). He
immediately singles out their richest tribesman Orgetorix. The first episode
contains relatively few representations of speech and thought, together mak-
ing up 23% of the total amount of words (N = 594). Most of the speeches and
thoughts are uttered by Orgetorix, who is also the first character of whom
thoughts and speeches are inserted.
Orgetorix’ thoughts and speeches first of all seem to function to character-
ize him as a persuasive leader. In his first speech (Caes. Gall. 1.2.1), Orgetorix
persuades the Helvetians to leave their territory. The narrator presents the

speech twice. First as a mentioned speech, depending on the verb persuasit.

An indirect presentation of the same speech follows, rather loosely connected
to persuasit:
Caes. Gall. 1.2.1

Is M. Messala, et M. Pisone consulibus regni cupiditate inductus coniu-
rationem nobilitatis fecit et civitati persuasit ut de finibus suis cum om-
nibus copiis exirent: perfacile esse, cum virtute omnibus praestarent, totius
Galliae imperio potiri.
In the consulship of Marcus Messalla and Marcus Piso, his desire for the
kingship led him to form a conspiracy of the nobility, and he persuaded the
community to march out of their territory in full force, urging that as they ex-
celled all in valour it was easy enough to secure the sovereignty of all Gaul.13
This bipartite presentational form first makes clear what Orgetorix achieved
by his speech, viz. persuading the Helvetians, an act that is important for the
further course of the narrative. In the second part, the line of his argument
is presented, explaining how he achieved this. Orgetorix played on the sen-
timents of the Helvetians who think their territory does not befit their ambi-
tions. The Helvetians decide to execute the plans proposed by Orgetorix and
start making arrangements to leave their territory, giving Orgetorix the power
to set things in motion.
Orgetorix goes on to use his persuasiveness, this time to convince two men
from other tribes, Casticus and Dumnorix. He urges them to seize power in
their respective tribes, as he is planning to do himself. We find the same pre-
sentational form for his speech as before.
Caes. Gall. 1.3.4-8

In eo itinere persuadet Castico, Catamantaloedis filio, Sequano, cuius
pater regnum in Sequanis multos annos obtinuerat et a senatu populi
Romani amicus appellatus erat, ut regnum in civitate sua occuparet, quod
pater ante habuerat; itemque Dumnorigi Haeduo, fratri Diviciaci, qui eo
tempore principatum in civitate obtinebat ac maxime plebi acceptus
erat, ut idem conaretur persuadet eique filiam suam in matrimonium dat.
Perfacile factu esse illis probat conata perficere, propterea quod ipse suae
13 All Bellum Gallicum translations are taken from Loebclassics.com (Edwards 1917). In
some cases they are adapted.

114 chapter 4
civitatis imperium obtenturus esset: non esse dubium quin totius Galliae
plurimum Helvetii possent; se suis copiis suoque exercitu illis regna concil-
iaturum confirmat. Hac oratione adducti inter se fidem et ius iurandum
dant et regno occupato per tres potentissimos ac firmissimos populos totius
Galliae sese potiri posse sperant.
In the course of his travels he persuaded Casticus, of the Sequani, son

of Catamantaloedes, who had held for many years the kingship of the
Sequani, and had been called by the Senate “the friend of the Roman
people,” to seize in his own state the kingship which his father had held
before him; and Dumnorix also, of the Haeduans, brother of Diviciacus,
at that time holding the chieftaincy of the state and a great favourite with
the common people, he persuaded to a like endeavour, and gave him his
own daughter in marriage. He convinced them that it was easy enough to
accomplish such endeavours, because he himself (so he said) was about
to secure the sovereignty of his own state. There was no doubt, he ob-
served, that the Helvetians were the most powerful tribe in all Gaul, and
he gave a pledge that he would win them their kingdoms with his own
resources and his own army. Swayed by this speech, they gave a mutual
pledge, confirming it by oath; and they hoped that when they had seized
their kingship they would be able, through the efforts of three most pow-
erful and most steadfast tribes, to master the whole of Gaul.
Two mentioned speeches, both depending on persuadet, narrate what

Orgetorix achieves: he persuades Casticus and Dumnorix. The wording of
Orgetorix’ persuasions is left out of consideration, both maintaining a fast
pace and suggesting that the persuading action is more important than the
content of the speech. Then, Orgetorix’ argumentation is presented indirectly.
This presentation gives the impression that he spoke to Casticus and Dum-
norix at the same time. The speech is presented in two parts, depending on
probat and confirmat. In the first part, Orgetorix reveals himself as a conspir-
ator by admitting that he will seize power in his own tribe. In the second part,
he assures Casticus and Dumnorix of his help.
The insertion of two short pieces of indirect speech is an efficient way
to add a small touch of liveliness to this short account of a conspiracy. The
effect is enhanced by the indirect thought depending on sperant. In this
thought, the narrator makes use of the deictic centre of the conspirators in
the expression tres potentissimos ac firmissimos populos. This reference to
the Helvetians, Sequanians and Haeduans contains characteristics that these
men ascribe to their peoples, potentissimos and firmissimos. The phrase tres

potentissimos ac firmissimos populos may be interpreted as pointing out to

the narratee that this is not just a conspiracy of three men but a collabora-
tion between men who may very well take control over the whole of Gaul
(totius Galliae). Thus, the narrator seems to anticipate that Roman action
will be necessary.
The speeches and thoughts in the excerpt above are part of the ongoing
chain of events that together constitute the story (persuadet – persuadet –
dat – probat – confirmat – dant – sperant). While the rather quick pace of the
narrative is maintained, the narratees get an impression of Orgetorix’ persua-
sive talents and pride, as well as of the power, strength and possible danger in
the Helvetians, the Sequanians and the Haeduans. The attributive discourse
(e.g. persuadet, confirmat) does not just introduce words uttered by characters
but seems to emphasize what characters do and achieve with their words. In
this way, the excerpt serves as an illustration of a more general observation
that the Caesarian narrator prefers more specific expressions for speech intro-
ductions over plain verbs of saying or hearing.14 In Bellum Gallicum, a character
is rarely merely speaking: he is ordering, informing, demanding, persuading or
pledging, as Orgetorix does in the third chapter.15
Unfortunately for Orgetorix, his plans were made public. This becomes clear
from the very next line, the first line of caput 4. The narrator here changes the
location of his story and switches from Orgetorix, Casticus and Dumnorix back
to the Helvetians.
Caes. Gall. 1.4.1

Ea res est Helvetiis per indicium enuntiata.
The design was revealed to the Helvetians by informers.
14 Dangel 1995: 99.

15 Dangel 1995: 99 describes the connection between (some of) these specific words and
the part of a speech (proemium, narratio etc.) that is represented. In my corpus a rela-
tively small amount of verbs simply means saying or hearing: only 60 introductions of
331 speeches are given by means of a rather neutral verb of saying or hearing, which
is about one fifth of all speeches (afferre, audire, cognoscere, dicere, efferre, inquit, loqui,
referre are the neutral verbs under consideration). In my Aeneid corpus, 40 speeches are
introduced by a neutral verb of saying or hearing, which is about one third of all speeches
(N = 131, affari, alloqui, ait, audire, dicere, effari, fari, ferre, inquit, loqui, referre are the
neutral verbs under consideration).
Although the verbs cognoscere (27 times) and dicere (17 times) occur quite frequently as
introductions of speeches, they are outranked by iubere, a verb that occurs 46 times. I will
elaborate the significant role of commands in this corpus when I discuss Caes. Gall. 1.7.2.

116 chapter 4
This is a mentioned speech in which an anaphorial expression (ea res) refers

to the content of the message, viz. the events that were just narrated. A men-
tioned speech with an anaphorical expression is often used in Bellum Gallicum
for messages that occur, as this message, at the start of a new episode taking
place at a different location.
A war cannot be fought without intelligence and the exchange of informa-
tion in messages is a common function of speeches in my corpus of Bellum
Gallicum in which 90 speech representations are messages.16 Caesar tends to
be the recipient of this intelligence.17 These messages generally contain infor-
mation that is known to the narratee, which makes it possible to use a mere
anaphorical expression to refer to the content of the message.18
The narrator of Bellum Gallicum, in short, is an efficient narrator when the
forms of informational speeches are taken into consideration. He tends to use
mentioned forms when the information is known to the narratees. In the first
line of chapter 4, the presentation of ea res est nuntiata shows that it is not the
content of the message that is important to the narrator, although it is of much
importance to the Helvetians. The interest of the narrator lies in the fact that
the Helvetians hear about it, as this is what propels the narrative forward and
allows a smooth change of both the time and the space of his narrative.
In reaction to the message, the Helvetians bring Orgetorix to court. The day
of his defense ends in disarray and eventually Orgetorix is killed, perhaps by
his own hand.
Caes. Gall. 1.4.3-4

Cum civitas ob eam rem incitata armis ius suum exequi conaretur multi-
tudinemque hominum ex agris magistratus cogerent, Orgetorix mortuus est;
neque abest suspicio, ut Helvetii arbitrantur, quin ipse sibi mortem consciverit.
The state, being incensed at this, essayed to secure its due rights by force
of arms, and the magistrates were bringing together a number of men
16 In sum, 90 speech representations are meant to provide information to the addressee.

Six other instances are requests for information. This means that about one third (N =
331) of the speech representations in my corpus can be classified under the heading of
information exchange.
17 Ezov 1996 discusses the role of intelligence in Caesar’s warfare and the use of intelligence
in the narratives of Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civili. He argues that it functions as a
reflection of Caesar’s personality and skill as a general.
18 These messages refer to events that have already been narrated. In narratological terms
they are repeating internal actorial analepses.

from the country parts, when Orgetorix died, not without suspicion, as
the Helvetians think, of suicide.
The possible suicide of Orgetorix is presented as an indirect question depend-

ing on a present tense form (abest). This is an actual present tense form, hold-
ing in the time of narration, as the narrator quotes a rumour that was told in
his own time. Thus, the narrator makes use of a reported narrator for this part
of his story, a technique that does not occur often in Bellum Gallicum.19
The lack of reported narrators in Bellum Gallicum seems telling both for this
passage and for the narrative style in Bellum Gallicum, as reported narrators are
a common device to embed subordinate stories or alternative versions of the
story in historiographic works. The fact that such side-line rumours or alter-
native versions of reported narrative hardly occur in Bellum Gallicum suggests
that the Caesarian narrator wants to keep himself to one story line and present
that story line as straightforwardly as possible.20 This rumour about Orgetorix’
suicide seems to be meant as an explicit conclusion of the Orgetorix episode.
4.2.2 The Initial Phase of the War against the Helvetians, Caesar,
Bellum Gallicum 1.5-16
Now that Orgetorix is dead, the tribe of the Helvetians becomes the main topic
of the story. The episode contains several speeches and thoughts, making up
37% of the narrative. The representations of speech and thought present the
plans of the Helvetians (for instance in intelligence received by Caesar) and
reactions by Caesar and pleas for help from Gallic tribes and allies of Rome.
The episode starts with the Helvetian plans for migration in which the
motivations and decisions of the Helvetians are presented (several indirect
thoughts in Caes. Gall. 1.5). After their agreement on their own plans, the Hel-
vetians convince other tribes to leave their territories. The narrator proceeds
to describe the two routes the Helvetians could take, using the Helvetians as
focalizers in the first part.21 The focalization of the Helvetians can be derived
from, for instance, possent in the first relative clause. The Helvetians are the
19 There is only one other embedded subordinate story in the corpus, governed by an imper-
fect tense form (constabat in Caes. Gall. 7.47.7).
20 Cf. Riggsby 2006: 154, who remarks on time in Bellum Gallicum: “Time progresses fairly
steadily throughout the narrative. The narrator never looks forward and rarely looks back
from the time of the main narrative.”
21 Focalized descriptions strictly speaking falls outside the scope of this study. I nevertheless
insert this example because it nicely illustrates how the narrator contrasts geographical
facts with (later) statements of characters (see also my remarks on Caes. Gall. 1.7.3).

118 chapter 4
subject of possent, which suggests that we could add the dative Helvetiis to the
earlier imperfect tense erant:
Caes. Gall. 1.6.1-2

Erant omnino itinera duo, quibus itineribus domo exire possent: unum
per Sequanos, angustum et difficile, inter montem Iuram et flumen
Rhodanum, vix qua singuli carri ducerentur, mons autem altissimus im-
pendebat, ut facile perpauci prohibere possent; alterum per provinciam
nostram, multo facilius atque expeditius, propterea quod inter fines Hel-
vetiorum et Allobrogum, qui nuper pacati erant, Rhodanus fluit isque
non nullis locis vado transitur.
There were two routes, and no more, by which they could leave their
homeland. One lay through the territory of the Sequani, betwixt the Jura
range and the river Rhone, a narrow route and a difficult, where carts could
scarce be drawn in single file; with an exceeding high mountain overhang-
ing it, so that a very few men might easily check them. The other route,
through the Roman Province, far more easy and convenient, forasmuch as
the Rhone flows between the borders of the Helvetians and the Allobroges
(who had lately been brought to peace) and is in some places fordable.
The excerpt is a geographical description that could have been presented in

present tense forms completely because all indicative states of affairs in this
excerpt are still valid at the time of narration.22 However, the narrator has cho-
sen to present the two roads in two different ways. The first road is presented
using the standpoint of the Helvetians, whereas the narrator uses his own
point in time for the second road (provinciam nostram, fluit, transitur).
The focalized description highlights that the Helvetians, at that point in
time, had a choice, since two roads were available to them. Contrary to what
the Helvetians will say in Caes. Gall. 1.7, they did not have to cross Roman
territory to achieve their own goals. Thus, this brief description from the per-
spective of the Helvetians functions as a preparation, a seed, for an ensuing lie
by the Helvetians.
As said, the Helevetians decide to take the latter road, meaning that they
will cross Roman territory, inhabited by the Allobroges. The Helvetians make
this choice because they think they can persuade the Allobroges to let them
through (one way or another).
22 See also my discussion of Caes. Gall. 7.69.1-6.

A message about their plans reaches the ears of Caesar and the message
functions as a narrativized change of location. That is, the narrator turns his
attention from the Helvetians to Caesar:
Caes. Gall. 1.7.1

Caesari cum id nuntiatum esset, eos per provinciam nostram iter facere
conari, maturat ab urbe proficisci et quam maximis potest itineribus in
Galliam ulteriorem contendit et ad Genavam pervenit.
When this was presented to Caesar, that they were endeavouring to march
through the Roman Province, he made speed to leave Rome, and hasten-
ing to Further Gaul by as rapid stages as possible, arrived near Geneva.
The message is first referred to by means of id, a reference that would have
been clear enough, given the content of the previous caput. However, the
content of the message is then presented more explicitly by means of indi-
rect speech. Thus, the narrator deviates from his tendency to use a mentioned
form for messages that repeat earlier actions. Instead, he makes the content
of id explicit by means of an accusativus cum infinitivo containing several
elements geared to his own deictic centre, of which provinciam nostram is the
most important.23 This form allows the narrator to say, again, that the Helve-
tians planned to travel through provinciam nostram. Thereby, he reinstates the
danger for the Roman province, presenting Caesar’s reaction and journey to
Geneva as necessary and inevitable.
The passage contains the first appearance of Caesar in Bellum Gallicum.24
In this first appearance, he already operates as the decisive and swiftly oper-
ating general he will turn out to be throughout the narrative. As soon as he
receives intelligence, he makes a decision and acts upon this decision, ostensi-
bly reaching his goal, Geneva, in an instant (pervenit). There, he gives his first
set of commands, presented as a mentioned speech and an indirect speech
respectively:
23 Apart from the expression provinciam nostram, also the referential expression eos is
geared to the deictic centre of the narrator. The alternative expression, Helvetios, would
have taken away the emphasis on the most important entity in this message, viz. provin-
ciam nostram.
24 Apparently, Caesar does not need an introduction. The first referential expression refer-
ring to Caesar is his name (Caesari), not only indicating that the narratees know who
he is but also that they expected him to appear in this narrative (cf. the more elaborate
introduction of Orgetorix: Apud Helvetios longe nobilissimus fuit et ditissimus Orgetorix).

120 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 1.7.2

Provinciae toti quam maximum potest militum numerum imperat (erat
omnino in Gallia ulteriore legio una), pontem, qui erat ad Genavam, iubet
rescindi.
From the whole Province he requisitioned the largest possible number

of troops (there was in Further Gaul no more than a single legion), and
ordered the bridge at Geneva to be broken down.
Caesar is the character that gives about 70 percent of the commands in this
corpus.25 Every command given by Caesar and executed by his troops strength-
ens Caesar’s image of a focused and decisive general. The authority of Caesar
is enhanced even more by the way in which the execution of commands is pre-
sented in the narrative: their execution is left implicit in virtually all cases, as is
also the case here. The narrator does not narrate that the bridge is demolished
after Caesar’s command, implying that this is self-evident and strengthening
Caesar’s authority even further.26
Apart from strengthening Caesar’s authority, this treatment of commands
and their executions also has an effect on the pace of the narrative. The clause
pontem iubet rescindi may seem to narrate one event, a command, but, in fact,
it informs the narratee of two events on the time-line, to wit Caesar’s command
and the destruction of the bridge. Thus, the pace of the narrative is rather fast or
even elliptic here, almost as if to emphasize Caesar’s decisiveness and swiftness
in reaction to the plans of the Helvetians. Rambaud discusses celeritas as an im-
portant characteristic of Roman generals and one could interpret the efficiency
of the narrator as a textual representation of Caesar’s celeritas as a general.27
25 A total amount of 57 commands is given by Caesar and, in sum, there are 83 commands
in my corpus. The form of commands in Bellum Gallicum is in most cases (48 instances) a
verb of ordering (e.g. iubere or imperare) followed by indirect speech. This indirect speech
has the form of a subordinate clause containing a subjunctive (23 occasions) or an ac-
custivus cum infinitivo (25 occasions). Apart from these, there are 25 instances in which
the verb iubere has an accusative complement and an infinitive complement, which fall
under the heading of indirect speech as well in this study (cf. Pinkster 1990: 128). Eight
commands are presented as mentioned speeches and one is presented in the form of a
mentioned letter (written). Two commands occur in the form of direct speech.
26 Virtually all commands by Caesar are executed but see my discussion of Caes. Gall. 7.12.3
for a counterexample.
27 Rambaud 1966: 251.

When the Helvetians hear about all this, they decide to opt for a diplomatic
strategy and they send deputies to Caesar. The message of these deputies can
be identified by the narratees as an outright lie: the Helvetians claim they can
only travel through the province, whereas the narratees know from caput 6
that there were, in fact, two routes available to them.
Caes. Gall. 1.7.3

Ubi de eius adventu Helvetii certiores facti sunt, legatos ad eum mittunt
nobilissimos civitatis, cuius legationis Nammeius et Verucloetius princi-
pem locum obtinebant, qui dicerent sibi esse in animo sine ullo maleficio
iter per provinciam facere, propterea quod aliud iter haberent nullum: rog-
are ut eius voluntate id sibi facere liceat.
When the Helvetians learned of his coming, they sent as deputies to him the
noblest men of the state. Nammeius and Verucloetius held the chief place
in the deputation, with instructions to say that their purpose was to march
through the Province without any mischief, because they had no other route;
and that they asked that they might have leave so to do of his good will.
The narratees are invited to conclude that the Helvetians lie when they say al-
iud iter haberent nullum.28 This conclusion influences the interpretation of the
expression sine ullo maleficio, which seems to make their route and message
just that, an outrage. The use of ullus in this expression is a mimetic element
that gives the Helvetian ‘promise’ a sanctimonious undertone.29
The insincerity of the Helvetians is accentuated further in Caesars’ follow-
ing deliberations, presented in a series of indirect thoughts (i.e. a partitioned
thought).30 Caesar remembers that the Helvetians killed consul Lucius Cassius
and feels that hostile troops (homines inimico animo) cannot be trusted (Caes.
Gall. 1.7.4).31 His deliberations end in a decision and the deliberations function
28 Görler 1976: 108.

29 Ullus derives from the deictic centre of the characters because it indicates the emphasis
given to the noun maleficium.
30 For other partitioned thoughts in Bellum Gallicum see the footnote included in my dis-
cussion of Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-34.1. For partitioned speeches in Bellum Gallicum, see my
discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.43.4-9.
31 Cf. Riggsby 2006 : 176, who discusses this passage as an illustration of Caesar’s efforts to
justify his campaigns. Caesar here offers two motivations for this campaign, to wit the
memory of an earlier defeat inflicted by the Helvetii and the denial of an opportunity to
inflict injury and harm on the Roman people.

122 chapter 4
to prepare the narratees for exactly this decision. Caesar decides to deceive the
Helvetians and the preceding line of thought implicitly evokes the idea that
his deceit is allowed because they are themselves deceitful people.32 Thus, this
specific type of thought representation functions in a way that is typical for
this character in Bellum Gallicum.33
Caesar tells the deputies that they need to return later for further negoti-
ations. This buys him time to take the necessary precautions to defend the
province and he closes off the way through the Roman territory. Left with no
other option, the Helvetians decide to take the more difficult route, the route
through the territory of the Sequanians (1.8-9). Caesar hears of these plans
through a message. The message is presented as an indirect speech followed
by two relative clauses with an indicative verb form.
Caes. Gall. 1.10.1

Caesari renuntiatur Helvetiis esse in animo per agrum Sequanorum et
Haeduorum iter in Santonum fines facere, qui non longe a tolosatium
finibus absunt, quae civitas est in provincia.
The news was brought back to Caesar that the Helvetians were minded
to march through the land of the Sequani and the Haeduans into the bor-
ders of the Santones, which are not far removed from the borders of the
Tolosates, a state in the Province.
The addressee of this speech in the narrative, Caesar, can be expected to know
where the territory of the Santones is and therefore does not need a topograph-
ical introduction. On the level of the narratees, however, the tribe of the San-
tones has not yet been mentioned and, therefore, needs some introduction.
This introduction is given in the relative clauses. The indicative mood of the
verb forms indicates that it is the narrator who communicates with his nar-
ratees and that the explanation is not part of the message. The narrator uses
the two indicative clauses to repair the difference in the knowledge of the rep-
resented addressee and the knowledge of the narratee, a technique he uses
recurrently.34
32 Görler 1976: 104.

33 Pelling 2013: 49, Riggsby 2006: 193–194.
34 This difference in knowledge between the narrator and his public on the one hand and
the represented speech situation on the other is mentioned by Rambaud 1966: 49: César
utilisait les rapports de ses légats pour raconter ce qu’il n’avait pas vu, et il a ajouté pour le
public les indications nécessaires dans un livre, mais inutiles entre un légat et lui.

This is not the only function or effect of these relative clauses, however. The
relative clauses serve another, more manipulative goal as well, as such clauses
often do in Bellum Gallicum.35 They make clear that even this route of the Hel-
vetians (as well as the route passing Geneva, Caes. Gall. 1.7) threatens the Ro-
man province. The narrator makes absolutely sure that his narratees know how
the Helvetians wanted to travel and that, more importantly, they would come
close to Roman regions.
Again, Caesar ponders the situation and concludes that this would mean a
threat to Rome (Caes. Gall. 1.10.2). He takes the necessary actions and travels
to the Segusiavi, on the banks of the river Rhône. There, deputies of the Haed-
uans come to ask him for help, a plea that is presented as indirect speech with
elements that derive from both the deictic centre of the narrator and that of
the speaking characters, the Haeduan deputies.
Caes. Gall. 1.11.3

Haedui, cum se suaque ab iis defendere non possent, legatos ad Cae-
sarem mittunt rogatum auxilium: ita se omni tempore de populo Romano
meritos esse ut paene in conspectu exercitus nostri agri vastari, liberi eorum
in servitutem abduci, oppida expugnari non debuerint.
Unable to defend their persons and their property from the invaders, the
Haeduans sent deputies to Caesar to ask for aid. These pleaded that they
had always deserved too well of the Roman people to merit, almost in
sight of the our army, the devastation of their lands, the removal of their
children into slavery, and the capture of their towns.
The argumentative structure of the speech (ita ... ut) and the appealing expres-
sions omni tempore and paene in conspectu can be ascribed to the Haeduans.36
The request of the Haeduans consists of two elements, an ita-clause in which
35 Speeches in which one of the elements is explained by a relative clause containing an

indicative occur at Caes. Gall. 1.2 (arbitrabantur); 1.3 (persuadet); 1.7 (iubet); 1.10 (nun-
tiatur); 1.21 (iubet); 1.24 (iussit); 1.28 (concessit); 1.28 (iussit, twice); 1.28 (noluit); 1.38
(nuntiatum est); 1.47 (visum est); 7.2 (petunt); 7.7 (iubet); 7.31 (iubet); 7.44 (animadver-
tit); 7.55 (cognovissent); 7.59 (intellegebat); 7.70 (iubet). In all cases, the narrator uses the
relative clause to ‘repair’ a lack in the knowledge of his narratees, but often he seems to
have other, somewhat manipulative goals as well.
36 Markers of the (argumentative) structure of a speech are related to the deictic centre of
the character because they suggest that the speech is presented in the order and structure
used by the speaking character.

124 chapter 4
their loyalty to the Romans is brought up and an ut-clause expressing how the
Romans should repay them for their loyalty.37 The bipartite structure of the
indirect speech suggests that the Haeduans strongly pleaded their case, as do
the expressions omni tempore and paene in conspectu.
On the other hand, exercitus nostri and eorum are explicitly geared to the de-
ictic centre of the narrator. According to Dangel this contrast in the use of de-
ictic centres enhances the passion with which the request is made and stresses
the need of the Haeduans.38 I would add that the explicit use of two deictic
centres reflects the fact that this speech has persuasive functions on two levels
of the narrative, viz. that of the characters and that of the narrator. The ele-
ments derived from the characters emphasize that the Haeduans really needed
help within the story world. The elements derived from the narrator function
in the narrator’s interaction with the narratees. The latter elements, especially
exercitus nostri, make clear to the narratees that the Haeduans not only needed
help but that the Romans had to be the ones providing it. The narrator uses a
specific combination of both deictic centres to suggest that a Roman interven-
tion in this situation was not only necessary but also the natural thing to do.
Thus, the speech of the Haeduans functions, on the level of the narrator, as an
explanation and preparation of the ensuing actions.
After the request of the Haeduans, Caesar receives similar appeals from the
Ambarri and the Allobroges. Therefore, he decides to wait no longer and take
action. Then, a message is brought to him that the Helvetians are well on their
way and crossing the river Saône:
Caes. Gall. 1.12.1-3

Flumen est Arar, quod per fines Haeduorum et Sequanorum in Rhoda-
num influit, incredibili lenitate, ita ut oculis in utram partem fluat iudi-
cari non possit. Id Helvetii ratibus ac lintribus iunctis transibant. Ubi per
exploratores Caesar certior factus est tres iam partes copiarum Helvetios
id flumen traduxisse, quartam vero partem citra flumen Ararim reliquam
esse, de tertia vigilia cum legionibus tribus e castris profectus ad eam
partem pervenit quae nondum flumen transierat. Eos impeditos et in-
opinantes adgressus magnam partem eorum concidit; reliqui sese fugae
mandarunt atque in proximas silvas abdiderunt.
37 The perfect tense form debuerint might also be seen as related to the deictic centre of the
character. Although Dangel 1995: 106 indeed does so, I would qualify it as unbiased with
respect to a deictic centre. The reason for my analysis is that the main clause contains a
historical present tense form (mittunt).
38 Dangel 1995: 106.

There is a river Arar (Saône), which flows through the borders of the
Haeduans and the Sequani into the Rhone: its sluggishness is beyond be-
lief, for the eye cannot determine in which direction the stream flows.
This river the Helvetians proceeded to cross by rafts and boats fastened
together. When Caesar’s scouts informed him that three-quarters of the
Helvetian forces had actually crossed this river, and that about a quarter
remained on the near side of the river Saône, he left camp in the third
watch with three legions and came up to the division of the enemy which
had not yet crossed. He attacked them unawares when they were heavily
loaded, and put a great number of them to the sword; the remainder be-
took themselves to flight and hid in the nearest woods.
Like the request of the Haeduans, this speech, too, contains elements deriving
from both deictic centres. Here, however, the use of two deictic centres calls
for a different explanation. I would like to argue that the first part of the speech
is geared more to the deictic centre of the narrator, the second to that of the
characters.39
Especially the expressions referring to the river Arar are indicative for the
partitioning of the message. The river Arar was explicitly introduced in the
preceding narrative (flumen est Arar), and the narrator has already narrated
that the Helvetians were crossing it. The referential expression id flumen in the
first part of message follows the chain of participant tracking of the preceding
narrative and, thus, is geared to the deictic centre of the narrator.
The referential expression flumen Ararim, however, disregards the chain
of participant tracking or, rather, indicates the start of a new chain. The re-
booting of the chain of participant tracking indicates that there is a discourse
boundary between the first and second part of this message.40 The second part
seems to be presented more from the perspective of the speaking characters as
it contains flumen Ararim and the particle vero. Vero expresses the excitement
39 As I explain in chapter 1, a speech may contain several variations of indirect speech, sub-
tly differing in the degree to which they are geared to one of the two deictic centres. It is
well-known that within the boundaries of one indirect speech the tense of subjunctive
forms may vary between present (and perfect) and imperfect (and pluperfect) in Bellum
Gallicum (cf. e.g. Andrewes 1937). This means that the tense forms in one part of a speech
may be geared to deictic centre of the narrator, whereas they are geared to the deictic
centre of the speaker in another part. The variation in deictic centre within one speech
also occurs in the case of adverbs and referential expressions (Sznajder 2002a, 2005).
I will elaborate on this in my discussion of Ariovistus’ speech in Caes. Gall.1.43.
40 Bolkestein 2000.

126 chapter 4
of the messengers and the urgency of the situation. One can also argue that the
preposition citra derives from the speaking characters in that it refers to their
position with respect to the river. The elements geared to the deictic centre of
the messenger give emphasis to the second part of the message. This is only
natural since it is this part of the message that calls for an immediate and ade-
quate reaction. The presentational form suggests that Caesar can still prevent
that a fourth part of the Helvetians cross the river but he needed to be quick
to do so.
Caesar indeed reacts quickly (profectus) and the text suggests that he
arrives at the river almost immediately (pervenit). This suggestion is en-
hanced by the syntactic embedding of the message about the four parts of
the Helvetians. It is presented in a subordinate clause, building up to the
narration of Caesar’s reaction. The whole excerpt starts in a rather calm way
with a geographical description but in the second half of the message the
suspense rises. The narrative reaches a climax in concidit. Caesar defeats
the Helvetians.
Adding insult to the Helvetian injuries, Caesar then builds a bridge over the
Saône. The narrator emphasizes this feat, that costs Caesar only one day, by
means of a collective sentiment of the Helvetians. The narrator presents this
sentiment as the reason why the Helvetians contact Caesar.
Caes. Gall. 1.13.2

Hoc proelio facto, reliquas copias Helvetiorum ut consequi posset,
pontem in Arari faciendum curat atque ita exercitum traducit. Helvetii
repentino eius adventu commoti cum id quod ipsi diebus xx aegerrime
confecerant, ut flumen transirent, illum uno die fecisse intellegerent,
legatos ad eum mittunt …
This action over, he caused a bridge to be made over the Saône and sent
his army across thereby, in order to pursue the remainder of the Helve-
tian forces. Alarmed at his sudden approach—for they perceived that the
business of crossing the river, which they themselves had accomplished
with the greatest difficulty in twenty days, had been despatched by Cae-
sar in a single one—the Helvetians sent deputies to him.
The collective sentiment is presented as a combination of a mentioned thought

(commoti) and indirect thought. The referential expressions in both the men-
tioned (eius) and the indirect thought (id, illum) derive from the deictic centre
of the narrator. By using illum the narrator refers to Caesar with an expres-
sion that is less informative than the speaking or thinking characters would

have used.41 The reference id and the two specifying clauses following it are
presented from the narratorial deictic centre too. In this case, the indicative
confecerant in the relative clause shows that the reference is predominantly
geared to the deictic centre of the narrator. By means of this clause, the narra-
tor informs his narratees that it had taken the Helvetians twenty days to cross
the river. The strongly evaluative adverb aegerrime within the relative clause
seems to be a mimetic element deriving from the deictic centre of the Hel-
vetians, however. It expresses the emotion of anxious astonishment that the
Helvetians must have felt when they understood that Caesar could do this in
one day. This collective sentiment, in short, combines the two deictic centres
to create the suggestion that Caesar achieved a great feat, not just in the eyes
of the narrator, but also from the viewpoint of his enemies.
It remains unclear how the narrator knows about this sentiment. He does not
state, for instance, that he heard it from Helvetian messengers or captives but sim-
ply presents this from his omniscient perspective.42 What we can conclude is that
this excerpt emphasizes the swiftness or celeritas of Caesar as a general and that
it is given all the more veracity because it is the enemy who admits that Caesar
outclasses them in speed. This indirect form of praise is found more often in sen-
timents of non-Roman collectives. The collective sentiment, in short, shows what
it is like to be the enemy of Caesar, thus contributing to his characterization.
Another common function of collective sentiments in this corpus is that
they contain opinions on which the collective base their next actions, as is also
the case in the collective sentiment of the Helvetians above.43 The Helvetians
decide to opt for diplomatic actions, basing their decision on the swiftness
with which Caesar is able to build a bridge.
The Helvetians send a deputation to Caesar, lead by Divico.44 Divico opens
the negotiations and his speech is presented as a lengthy indirect speech of
41 That is, for the Helvetians Caesar is not a given topic and, according to this status, they
would have had to refer to him by means of a name.
42 Cf. Görler 1976: 102.
43 This function of collective sentiments is how I would explain the fact that the narrative
of Bellum Gallicum contains 33 collective sentiments (in the form of indirect thought) of
non-Roman groups, whereas it contains only 8 collective sentiments of Romans. Roman
collectives are not found to deliberate and make decisions in Bellum Gallicum, since de-
liberations and decisions are made by Caesar. The collective sentiments of Romans that
do occur in the corpus are mainly inserted when Caesar is not around (e.g. Caes. Gall. 7.12
intellexissent) or when Romans are about to do something that is unwise and against the
warnings and commands of Caesar (e.g. Caes. Gall. 7.47 existimabant).
44 On this exchange and its function in the (negative) characterization of Divico, see Tsit-
siou-Chelidoni 2010: 126–131.

128 chapter 4
100 words, containing elements displaying the use of both available deictic
centres.45 The speech starts with the official message, after which Divico ex-
presses a more personal taunt to Caesar (quod inproviso to despiceret).

is ita cum Caesare egit: si pacem populus Romanus cum Helvetiis faceret, in
eam partem ituros atque ibi futuros Helvetios, ubi eos Caesar constituisset atque
esse voluisset; sin bello persequi perseveraret, reminisceretur et veteris incom-
modi populi Romani et pristinae virtutis Helvetiorum. quod inproviso unum
pagum adortus esset, cum ii, qui flumen transissent, suis auxilium ferre non pos-
sent, ne ob eam rem aut suae magnopere virtuti tribueret aut ipsos despiceret.
He treated with Caesar as follows, saying that if the Roman people would
make peace with the Helvetians, the Helvetians would go whither and
abide where Caesar should determine and desire; that, if on the other hand
he should continue to visit them with war, he was advised to remember
the earlier disaster of the Roman people and the ancient valour of the Hel-
vetians; that he had attacked one canton unawares, when those who had
crossed the river could not bear assistance to their fellows; but that that
event must not induce him to rate his own valour highly or to despise them.
The difference between the official part and Divico’s personal statement is re-
flected in the referential expressions. In the official part, the names of Helve-
tians and Caesar are used to refer to them. Divico is a member of the Helvetian
tribe and one might have expected the use of se referring to his tribe in this
speech, as well as the use of is for the addressee Caesar. As Dangel points out,
however, when the speaking character has the status of an official spokesper-
son, he often speaks about his people from an objective standpoint and uses
the pronoun is instead of the reflexive (cf. eos).46 The excerpt shows that Dan-
gel’s point also holds for the use of names instead of the reflexive.47
45 This is the first indirect speech of considerable length in the corpus. The vast majority of
indirectly presented speeches in Bellum Gallicum is shorter than 40 words (191 out of 229
indirect speeches), and only fourteen speeches exceed a length of 90 words (Caes. Gall.
1.13.3: egit; 1.14.1: respondit; 1.17.1: proponit; 1.18.3: reperit; 1.20.1: obsecrare coepit; 1.31.3:
locutus est; 1.35.2: his mandatis; 1.36.1: respondit; 1.40.1: incusavit; 1.44.2: praedicavit;
7.14.2: docet; 7.29.1: consolatus cohortatusque est; 7.32.2: oratum; 7.66.3: demonstrat).
46 Dangel 1995.
47 For the use of names, especially Caesar’s name, rather than pronouns to refer to the
speaking character and addressee, see Caes. Gall. 1.31.14-16 and 1.34.1-4.

The use of referential expressions is different in the second part of Divico’s

speech. A new section starts at quod inproviso and one might expect the start of
a new chain of referential expressions, reflected in the use of a name. However,
Caesar is no longer referred to by his name but by a zero reference (adortus
esset and despiceret). This suggests that the character here turned from talking
about ‘Caesar’ and ‘he’ to a direct address of Caesar by means of ‘you’. It seems
to mark the transition from official message to personal taunt, in which Divico
makes clear to Caesar not to draw too many conclusions from one minor vic-
tory. Also in the last part of his speech (not quoted here) Divico does not show
any modesty or fear, and he threatens the Romans that the very place were they
are standing might get its name from a disaster to the Roman people.
Caesar’s response is presented as a lengthy indirect speech (159 words, 1.14
respondit). First Caesar rebukes the Helvetians, but in the last sentences he
proposes that the Helvetians offer him hostages and give compensation to the
Haeduans and the Allobroges. The two parts of his speech are separated from
each other by a general remark about the gods.48 In this general remark, as of-
ten is the case, the tenses of the subjunctives switch from past to present after
which the use of the present tense is continued in the rest of the speech.49 The
introduction of the second part of Caesar’s speech starts with cum ea ita sint,
tamen ..., emphasising Caesar’s accommodating attitude and his willingness to
find a solution.50 On the whole, the speech shows that Caesar will not be trifled
with and that he is insensitive to the Helvetian threats. Caesar is focused on
finding a diplomatic solution. The form and content of his speech reflect the
authority of a Roman imperator.51
After the two rather long opening speeches by Divico and Caesar the nego-
tiations are ended rather abruptly by Divico. He states that the Helvetians usu-
ally receive hostages and do not offer them and then departs. This speech, too,
is presented indirectly and contains several elements deriving from Divico’s
deictic centre (ita... ut, a perfect subjunctive):
48 Caes. Gall. 1.14.5 Consuesse enim deos immortales, quo gravius homines ex commutatione
rerum doleant, quos pro scelere eorum ulcisci velint, his secundiores interdum res et diutur-
niorem impunitatem concedere. Translation: “or it was the wont of the immortal gods to
grant a temporary prosperity and a longer impunity to make men whom they purposed
to punish for their crime smart the more severely from a change of fortune.”
49 Andrewes 1937.
50 Caes. Gall. 1.14.6: Cum ea ita sint, tamen, si obsides ab eis sibi dentur, uti ea quae polliceantur
facturos intellegat, …. Translation: “Yet, for all this, he would make peace with the Helvetii, if
they would offer him hostages to show him that they would perform their promises,…”
51 Tsitsiou-Chelidoni 2010: 129.

130 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 1.14.7

Divico respondit: ita Helvetios a maioribus suis institutos esse uti obsides
accipere, non dare, consuerint; eius rei populum Romanum esse testem.
Hoc responso dato discessit.
Divico replied that it was the ancestral practice and the regular custom
of the Helvetians to receive, not to offer, hostages; that the Roman people
was witness thereof. With this reply he departed.
The brevity of this speech is remarkable, especially when it is contrasted to the

two earlier speeches. At the same time, the elements deriving from Divico clev-
erly suggest that this speech would not have been much longer if presented di-
rectly. This speech of a mere 19 words and the immediate departure of Divicio
seem to underline the rudeness and arrogance of the Helvetians in these, now
failed, negotiations.
After the diplomatic phase has ended, Caesar keeps his troops from fighting.
He tries to replenish the food supplies by pressing the Haeduans to provide the
corn they had promised. The Haeduans do not keep their promise and Caesar
summons the Haeduan chiefs to call them to account.
4.2.3 Dumnorix, Caes. Gall. 1.17-20

The meeting with the Haeduans is the starting point for a brief episode on the
Haeduan Dumnorix. Dumnorix was introduced into the story in caput 3 when
Orgetorix persuaded him to seize power. In this episode Caesar, and with him
the narratees, finds out that Dumnorix is not to be trusted although he is the
brother of the loyal Haeduan Diviciacus. The total amount of words uttered by
characters is relatively high in this episode (84%, N = 648), due to the infor-
mation that Caesar receives about Dumnorix. The information is presented by
the narrator in the form of speeches that inform Caesar and thoughts in which
Caesar ponders the situation. Thus, the narratees can think along with Caesar
and may evaluate his eventual reaction as just and adequate.52
The meeting starts with a rebuke by Caesar (presented indirectly and in two
parts depending on accusat and queritur respectively, 1.16.1), after which the
Haeduan Liscus starts to explain that some Haeduans incite other members of
their tribe not to give help to the Romans. His speech is presented as a relatively
long indirect speech (96 words). It contains several elements that are related
to Licus’ deictic centre (e.g. seditiosa, quin etiam). The speech ends as follows:
52 For a similar episode, see Caes. Gall. 7.32.1-35.1.

Caes. Gall. 1.17.5

Ab isdem nostra consilia quaeque in castris gerantur hostibus enuntiari;
hos a se coerceri non posse. Quin etiam, quod necessariam rem coactus
Caesari enuntiarit, intellegere sese quanto id cum periculo fecerit, et ob
eam causam quam diu potuerit tacuisse.
That these, again, were the men, who informed the enemy of our plans
and all the doings of the camp; that he did not have he power to restrain
them; nay, more, that he perceived with what risk he had acted in inform-
ing Caesar, under sheer force of necessity; and that for that reason he had
held his peace as long as he could.
Liscus’ tone and even his fear can be heard in this excerpt, due to elements
deriving from his deictic centre, such as quin etiam, quanto and quam diu. The
referential expressions nostra consilia and Caesari, however, clearly derive
from the deictic centre of the narrator. Caesar is the addressee and, therefore,
the use of his full name means that the referential expression is related to the
deictic centre of the narrator. A more neutral expression would have been eo,
but that reference would have been difficult to understand for the narratees
at this point in the speech because they might think eo refers to Dumnorix,
the topic of the previous sentences. By using his own deictic centre for these
expressions, the narrator makes sure that the references are comprehensible
for his narratees.
After Liscus’ speech, Caesar realises that Liscus is talking about Dumnorix
and starts gathering information from other Haeduan sources as well. This
information is presented in three indirectly presented passages depending
on repperit, reperiebat and certissimae res accederent respectively (Caes. Gall.
1.18.3 – 19.1). The first passage, depending on repperit, is relatively long (156
words) and contains incriminating information about Dumnorix, mainly
about his financial and social status among the Haeduans. As Caesar learns
about Dumnorix, the narratee learns about him as well. Especially the last part
of the information, in which it becomes clear that Dumnorix hates the Romans
and is better off without them, makes clear to the narratees that Dumnorix
could form a serious threat to the Romans.
The second passage then shows that Dumnorix indeed is a threat to
the Romans, as it informs about Dumnorix’ treacherous behaviour during
a recent cavalry engagement. The narrator specifically emphasizes Dum-
norix’ betrayal by presenting this incrimination separately from the other
suspicions.

132 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 1.18.10

Reperiebat etiam in quaerendo Caesar, quod proelium equestre adversum
paucis ante diebus esset factum, initium eius fugae factum a Dumnorige
atque eius equitibus (nam equitatui, quem auxilio Caesari Haedui miser-
ant, Dumnorix praeerat): eorum fuga reliquum esse equitatum perterritum.
Caesar discovered also in the course of his questioning, as concerning the

unsuccessful cavalry engagement of a few days before, that Dumnorix
and his horsemen (he was commander of the body of horses sent by the
Haeduans to the aid of Caesar) had started the retreat, and that by their
retreat the remainder of the horses had been stricken with panic.
The passage refers back to the failure of a cavalry engagement that was nar-
rated in caput 15. In this caput, it was mentioned that also the Haeduans had
sent horsemen, but the narratees were not informed that Dumnorix was the
commander of these men, or even that he was present. Caesar knew this, of
course. Therefore, the information that Dumnorix started the flight is suffi-
cient for Caesar to understand the information but the narratee needs the
nam-clause inserted by the narrator to put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Thus, this passage illustrates again (as the excerpt from Liscus’ speech did) that
the narrator makes sure that the information about Dumnorix is presented in
a form that is comprehensible for the narratee.
Despite this interference of the narrator, the information is presented from
the perspective of its addressee, Caesar. In this way, the information is pre-
sented as a natural part of the narrative, as it is in Liscus’ speech.53 Caesar’s per-
spective is used most explicitly in the last part of the incriminations in which
it becomes clear to Caesar that Dumnorix helped the Helvetians when they
crossed Sequanian territory (cf. Caes. Gall. 1.9):
Caes. Gall. 1.19.1

Quibus rebus cognitis, cum ad has suspiciones certissimae res accederent,
quod per fines Sequanorum Helvetios traduxisset, quod obsides inter eos dan-
dos curasset, quod ea omnia non modo iniussu suo et civitatis sed etiam
inscientibus ipsis fecisset, quod a magistratu Haeduorum accusaretur,|| satis
esse causae arbitrabatur quare in eum aut ipse animadverteret aut civitatem
animadvertere iuberet.
53 Rasmussen 1963: 83.

All this Caesar learnt, and to confirm these suspicions he had indisput-
able facts that Dumnorix had brought the Helvetians through the bor-
ders of the Sequani; that he had caused hostages to be given between
them; that he had done all this not only without orders from his state or
from himself [Caesar], but even without the knowledge of either; that he
was now accused by the magistrate of the Haeduans. Caesar deemed all
this to be cause enough for him either to punish Dumnorix himself, or to
command the state so to do.
In the indirect speech depending on certissimae res accederent, the reflexive pos-
sessive pronoun in iniussu suo is a reference to Caesar, who is the addressee of
this piece of information. The reflexive pronoun is used more often in indirect
speech to refer to the addressee but in these other cases the addressee is the
subject of the verb (e.g. cognoscere) in the governing clause.54 Caesar is not the
subject of certissimae res accederent but the use of suo suggests that the narratees
hear about this information as Caesar processes it in his head. The elements non
modo and sed etiam can be interpreted as expressing Caesar’s indignation about
Dumnorix’ brutality.
The narrator presents these facts as Caesar is already evaluating Dumnorix
and forming his opinion on how to react. His opinion is presented in an indi-
rect thought (depending on arbitrabatur) in the main clause: Caesar realises
that he needs to take action. At this point in the narrative one might expect
severe repercussions against Dumnorix but Caesar decides otherwise. This de-
cision is explained by presenting Caesar’s line of thought in the immediately
following sentences:
Caes. Gall. 1.19.2

His omnibus rebus unum repugnabat, quod Diviciaci fratris summum
in populum Romanum studium, summum in se voluntatem, egregiam
fidem, iustitiam, temperantiam cognoverat; nam ne eius supplicio Divici-
aci animum offenderet verebatur.
To all such procedure there was one objection, the knowledge that Divi-
ciacus, the brother of Dumnorix, showed the utmost zeal for the Roman
people, the utmost goodwill towards himself, in loyalty, injustice, in pru-
dence alike remarkable; for Caesar apprehended that the punishment of
Dumnorix might offend the feelings of Diviciacus.
54 This use is in accordance with the grammatical rules concerning the reflexive pronoun
(cf. Kühner-Stegmann 1955: II.1, 607).

134 chapter 4
The first part (his – cognoverat) could be interpreted as free indirect thought.
The arguments in favour of this interpretation are the fact that we are ‘in the
mind of Caesar’ throughout this episode, the meaning of cognoverat and mi-
metic elements such as the repetition of summum, the use of egregrium and
the tricolon fidem, iustitiam, temperantiam. The indicative mood of repugn-
abat and cognoverat makes this an excerpt for which the narrator takes full re-
sponsibility, thus suggesting that this is a fact and not just a thought or opinion.
The mimetic elements emphasize, in turn, that this fact plays a role in Caesar’s
decision-making process. The interim conclusion of this decision-making pro-
cess is that Diviciacus must not be offended and Caesar, therefore, wants to
discuss the situation with him.
Caesar explains the situation to Diviciacus. His explanations are presented
as mentioned speeches in which the speech is summarized by means of an in-
direct question (e.g. quae ... de Dumnorige sint dicta). The narratees, of course,
are already familiar with the situation and by means of this presentational
form the narrator avoids tedious repetition. Then, Caesar presents his decision
to Diviciacus:
Caes. Gall. 1.19.5

Petit atque hortatur ut sine eius offensione animi vel ipse de eo causa cog-
nita statuat vel civitatem statuere iubeat.
He asked and urged that without offence to the feelings of him he might
either hear his case himself and pass judgement upon him, or order the
state so to do.
This is an almost verbatim repetition of Caesar’s earlier opinion (depending

on arbitrabatur), with the addition of sine eius offensione animi. Diviciacus,
however, successfully changes Caesar’s mind by means of a tearful plea that is
presented quite elaborately (an indirect speech of 96 words). Diviciacus begs
Caesar to renounce any action because of his brotherly love but also, more im-
portantly, because of the reaction of the Haeduan tribe. Diviciacus’ argument
is that he will not be able to support Caesar openly when his brother has been
punished by Caesar.55 This argument is supposed to convince not only Caesar
but also functions to convince the narratee that Caesar’s upcoming reaction is
the thing to do. Caesar is indeed convinced and in two short indirect speeches
Caesar consoles Diviciacus (Caes. Gall. 1.20.5: consolatus rogat and ostendit).
55 Cf. Kraner et al. 1961: ad loc..

Then, finally, it is time to solve the problem. Dumnorix is summoned and

in two mentioned speeches and two succinctly presented indirect speeches
Caesar confronts Dumnorix with what he knows and tells him to change his
behaviour.
Caes. Gall. 1.20.6

Dumnorigem ad se vocat, fratrem adhibet; quae in eo reprehendat os-
tendit; quae ipse intellegat, quae civitas queratur proponit; monet ut
in reliquum tempus omnes suspiciones vitet; praeterita se Diviciaco fratri
condonare dicit. Dumnorigi custodes ponit, ut quae agat, quibuscum lo-
quatur scire possit.
Then he summoned Dumnorix to his quarters, and in the presence of his

brother he pointed out what he had to blame in him; he set forth what
he himself perceived, and the complaints of the state; he warned him to
avoid all occasions of suspicion for the future, and said that he excused
the past in consideration for his brother Diviciacus. He posted sentinels
over Dumnorix, so as to know what he did and with whom he spoke.
Again, the narrator summarizes the speeches that contain information already
known to the narratee. He thus not only avoids tedious repetition but also in-
creases the pace of the narrative. The effect of this high pace is that we see Caesar
at work as a decisive leader who performs all necessary actions in one steady flow
(vocat, adhibet, ostendit, proponit, monet, dicit, ponit). As a final action, Caesar posts
sentinels over Dumnorix and, apparently, this does the trick because Dumnorix is
not mentioned again until Caes. Gall. 5.6-8. At that point, Dumnorix causes trou-
ble for the last time by openly disobeying Caesar, after which he is executed.56
Summarizing the techniques involved in the representation of speech and
thought in this episode, we may conclude that the narrator uses several forms
of speech and thought to involve the narratees in Caesar’s decision-making
process. Apart from that, the narrator distributes the information presented
in the speeches in an efficient way, thus achieving an effective variation in the
pace of the narrative. He spends most time (i.e. words) on the speeches that
describe the problems with Dumnorix (e.g. the speech of Liscus, Caes. Gall.
1.17) and on Caesar’s deliberations about the problem (Caes. Gall. 1.18-19).
Once Caesar has made up his mind on how to react and the contrast between
56 Barlow 1998: 142 observes that ‘Dumnorix is given a splendid exit’ in book 5 and explains
how the narrator there reduces Dumnorix’ actions to ‘immoderate lusting’.

136 chapter 4
the good brother and the bad brother is made sufficiently clear, the narrator
uses shorter and summarizing forms of indirect speech to speed up his narra-
tive (Caes. Gall. 1.19-20). In this way, he evokes or even intensifies the sugges-
tion that Caesar takes his time to listen to the problems of the Haeduans, then
takes ample time to reach a decision, but that when it comes to carrying out his
plans he is as efficient and swift as ever.
4.2.4 Victory Over the Helvetians, Caes. Gall. 1.21-29

Although his problem with Dumnorix is solved for now, Caesar still has no
solution for his initial problem of the lack of food supplies. At the same time,
the war against the Helvetians is still going on. Fortunately, this war is brought
to a victory for the Romans by means of one long battle followed by a pursuit of
the surviving Helvetians. The surviving Helvetians eventually surrender.
In this episode about the victory over the Helvetians, the individual length of
speeches, thoughts and writings does not exceed 30 words, resulting in a relatively
small amount of words uttered by characters (27%, N = 1084). All speeches are
commands or messages and intelligence and the thoughts are mainly concerned
with the motives and decisions of the fighters. The narrator does not seem to
want to waste time on elaborate speeches during the fighting and restricts him-
self to short representations of speech and thought that are necessary during
battles. The battlefield is no place for chatter and action prevails over speech.
At the start of the episode, however, speeches do play a role in the action, in
order to emphasize the importance of correct intelligence in warfare. Caesar
has planned to attack the Helvetians from two sides and to this end he sends
Labienus to a mountain top. Labienus indeed reaches his goal but the plan fails
because Considius (unintentionally) gives Caesar wrong information:
Caes. Gall. 1.22.1

Prima luce, cum summus mons a Labieno teneretur, ipse ab hostium cas-
tris non longius mille et quingentis passibus abesset neque, ut postea ex
captivis conperit, aut ipsius adventus aut Labieni cognitus esset, Consid-
ius equo admisso ad eum accurrit, dicit montem, quem a Labieno occupari
voluerit, ab hostibus teneri: id se a Gallicis armis atque insignibus cognovisse.
At dawn Labienus was in possession of the summit of the height, and

Caesar was no more than a mile and a half from the enemy’s camp; and,
as he learnt afterwards from prisoners, neither his own approach nor that
of Labienus was discovered. At this moment Considius galloped back to
him, saying that the mountain he had wished Labienus to seize was in
possession of the enemy; that he knew it by the Gallic arms and badges.

The excerpt is exceptional in Bellum Gallicum in that the narrator here switches
to a later moment at which Caesar found out what had really happened (ut
postea conperit) while the narrator usually restricts himself to the time line
of his main story. This makes this excerpt one of the rare instances in Bellum
Gallicum in which the narratee knows more than Caesar. That is, the narra-
tee knows that everything is going according to Caesar’s plans and they know
that Considius’ information must be wrong, despite his details about the Gallic
arms and badges.57 Caesar, on the other hand, has to go by the information
available of the moment and cannot wait for further information, given the
urgency of the situation.58 Caesar, therefore, calls off the operation and places
his troops on another hill nearby.
Later that day, it becomes clear to Caesar that Considius’ haste was due to
panic and not because the situation asked for it:
Caes. Gall. 1.22.4

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.
At length, when the day was far spent, Caesar learnt from his scouts that
the height was in possession of his own troops, and that the Helvetians
had shifted their camp, and therefore that Considius in sheer panic had
reported to him as seen that which he had not seen.
By then, it is too late to continue the operation because the Helvetians have
moved their camp. Caesar follows them but some days later he decides to go
to Bibracte to replenish the food supplies. Deserters inform the Helvetians of
Caesar’s movements.
Caes. Gall. 1.23.2

Ea res per fugitivos L. Aemilii, decurionis equitum Gallorum, hostibus
nuntiatur. Helvetii, seu quod timore perterritos Romanos discedere a se ex-
istimarent, eo magis quod pridie superioribus locis occupatis proelium non
commisissent, sive eo quod re frumentaria intercludi posse confiderent,
57 Mensching 1984 discusses this episode and convincingly argues that the episode is pre-
sented in such a way that Caesar cannot be blamed for this initial failure nor for giving
this particular job to Considius.
58 Kraner et al. 1961: ad loc. point out that the urgency of the situation is made explicit by
the detail equo admisso and the asyndeton between accurrit and dicit.

138 chapter 4
commutato consilio atque itinere converso nostros a novissimo agmine

insequi ac lacessere coeperunt.
The change was reported to the enemy by some deserters from Lucius
Aemilius, a troop-leader of the Gallic horse. Now the Helvetians may
have supposed that the Romans were moving away from them because
of sheer panic, the more so because on the day before they had not joined
battle after seizing the higher ground; or they may have believed that the
Romans could be cut off from their corn-supply. Whichever the reason,
they changed their plan, altered their route, and began to pursue and to
annoy the Roman rearguard.
The message, presented as a mentioned speech (ea res nuntiatur), is a way to

change the location of the narrative. The anaphoric expression ea res functions
as a pivot between the previous part about the Romans and the next part about
the Helvetians, repeating the events just narrated in the light of the reaction of
the characters that hear about them.
Apparently, the deserters did not inform the Helvetians of the motives of
Caesar as they are uncertain why the Romans are moving. The narrator, in
turn, is uncertain about the motives the Helvetians have for their next action,
which is remarkable because he usually does know about the sentiments of
non-Romans.59
Whatever their motive may have been, the Helvetians pursue the Roman
rearguard and in reaction to this Caesar prepares for battle, as do the Helve-
tians. This is all done without too many speeches, a few commands excepted.
Caesar gives an exhortation speech to his troops but this speech is not even
presented in a summarized form.60 The narrative contains only a reference to
it in the form of the participle cohortatus. The narrator seems to want to main-
tain the pace of the narrative and give more emphasis to the battle itself.
Caes. Gall. 1.25.1

Caesar primum suo, deinde omnium ex conspectu remotis equis, ut
aequato omnium periculo spem fugae tolleret, cohortatus suos proelium
commisit.
59 The only other occasion in which the narrator is uncertain about the motives of non-
Romans occurs in this episode as well, when the narrator does not know why the Helve-
tians flee (Caes. Gall. 1.27.4).
60 On the forms and functions of Caesar’s exhortation speeches in Caes. Gall. 1 and 7, see
Adema 2016.

Caesar first had his own horse and then those of all others sent out of
sight, thus to equalise the danger of all and to take away hope of flight.
Then after a speech to encourage his troops he joined battle.
After a long fight that barely contains speeches and thoughts, the Romans gain
possession of the Helvetian baggage and camp (Caes. Gall. 1.26.4). The surviv-
ing Helvetians flee to the Lingones. Because Caesar cannot immediately follow
them he sends letters and messengers to the Lingones forbidding them to help.
This is one out of only three instances in this corpus in which a written medium
is explicitly mentioned. The content of the letter is presented in an indirect form.
Caes. Gall. 1.26.6

Caesar ad Lingonas litteras nuntios que misit, ne eos frumento neve alia re
iuvarent: qui si iuvissent, se eodem loco quo Helvetios habiturum.
Caesar despatched letters and messages to the Lingones, ordering them

not to give assistance by corn or otherwise, and affirming that, if they gave
such assistance, he would treat them in the same fashion as the Helvetians.
After three days, Caesar starts his pursuit and the Helvetians are compelled to
send deputies to him to talk about their surrender. One last attempt to flee is
made by about six thousand men but the motives of this attempt are unclear to
the narrator (Caes. Gall. 1.27.4, see my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.23.2). When
they are brought back, they are treated as enemies, whereas Caesar allows the
others to surrender. In a series of commands Caesar settles the matter, after
which the narrator explains the nature of these commands by inserting Cae-
sar’s motives.
Caes. Gall. 1.28.2

Helvetios, Tulingos, Latobicos in fines suos, unde erant profecti, reverti ius-
sit et, quod omnibus frugibus amissis domi nihil erat, quo famem tolerar-
ent, Allobrogibus imperavit, ut iis frumenti copiam facerent: ipsos oppida
vicos que, quos incenderant, restituere iussit. id ea maxime ratione fecit,
quod noluit eum locum, unde Helvetii discesserant, vacare, ne propter bon-
itatem agrorum Germani, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, suis finibus in Helve-
tiorum fines transirent et finitimi Galliae provinciae Allobrogibus que essent.
He commanded the Helvetians, Tulingi, and Latobrigi to return to their

own borders, whence they had started; and as they had lost all their pro-
duce, and had no means at home of sustaining hunger, he required the

140 chapter 4
Allobroges to give them a supply of corn. He also ordered them to restore

with their own hands the towns and villages which they had burnt. His
chief reason for so doing was that he did not wish the district which the
Helvetians had left to be unoccupied, lest the excellence of the farmlands
might tempt the Germans who dwell across the Rhine to cross from their
own into the Helvetian borders, and so to become neighbours to the
Province of Gaul and to the Allobroges.
Almost every indirect speech in this excerpt is interrupted by a relative clause

containing an indicative. The narrator uses these relative clauses to repair a
possible lack in the knowledge of his narratees. The addressees of Caesar’s
commands know exactly what is meant by fines suos, for instance, but the nar-
ratees may have forgotten the details. Even if they have not forgotten them, the
narrator wants to make sure that they realise again that the territories of the
Helvetians were vacant and that the Allobroges had burnt their cities down.
Caesar’s indirect thought explains why this is important: vacant territories
might seem inviting to the Germans who live nearby and only need to cross
the river – or at least that seems to be Caesar’s line of thought. By referring
to the Germans, the narrator not only brings the episode about the war against
the Helvetians to a close, he also anticipates the next part of his story. Caesar
seems to foresee that the Germans will be the next to cause trouble and his
thoughts thus foreshadow the upcoming episode about Ariovistus.
Before Caesar is proven right, the episode is given a conclusion in the form
of several addition and subtraction sums. The numbers of these sums are writ-
ten on tablets found in the Helvetian camp and presented as mentioned writ-
ings. They are brought to Caesar, who studies them.
Caes. Gall. 1.29.1

In castris Helvetiorum tabulae repertae sunt litteris Graecis confectae et
ad Caesarem relatae, quibus in tabulis nominatim ratio confecta erat,
qui numerus domo exisset eorum qui arma ferre possent, et item sepa-
ratim, quot pueri, senes mulieresque. Quarum omnium rerum summa
erat capitum Helvetiorum milium cclxiii, Tulingorum milium xxxvi,
Latobrigorum xiiii, Rauracorum xxiii, Boiorum xxxii; ex his qui arma
ferre possent ad milia nonaginta duo. Summa omnium fuerunt ad milia
ccclxviii. Eorum qui domum redierunt censu habito, ut Caesar imperav-
erat, repertus est numerus milium c et x.
In the camp of the Helvetians were found, and brought to Caesar, records
written out in Greek letters, wherein was drawn up a nominal register

showing what number of them had gone out from their homeland, who
were able to bear arms, and also separately children, old men, and
women. On all these counts the total showed 263,000 persons of the
Helvetians, 36,000 of the Tulingi, 14,000 of the Latobrigi, 23,000 of the
Rauraci, 32,000 of the Boii; of these there were about 92,000 able to bear
arms. The grand total was about 368,000. Of those who returned home a
census was taken in accordance with Caesar’s command, and the num-
ber was found to be 110,000.
Thus, the campaign against the Helvetians is ended with an image of Caesar
studying these tablets and taking stock of the remaining Gauls. The narrator,
lastly, compares the numbers of the tablets with the numbers that resulted
from a census carried out afterwards.
4.2.5 The Initial Phase of the War against Ariovistus, Caes. Gall. 1.30-47
The second part of the book is concerned with the war against the German king
Ariviostus, consisting of an episode that presents the initial phase in which
the war becomes more and more inevitable and an episode that presents the
fighting itself. The first episode contains many speeches, whereas the second,
in which the fighting is presented, does not.61 The main subjects of the first
episode are discussions of the situation and problems and ensuing diplomatic
negotiations with Ariovistus. These discussions and negotiations seem to func-
tion, on the level of the narrator and narratee, as a justification of the war.62
These subjects ensure that a large part of the episode is presented in the form
of representations of speeches and thoughts (79%, N = 3334). The thoughts
and deliberations presented in this episode are those of Caesar, resulting in a
focalization through Caesar’s eyes in this episode.63
At the beginning of the episode, the Gauls come to congratulate Caesar
and ask him to be allowed a convention of Gallic tribes (an indirect speech
of 62 words, Caes. Gall. 1.30.2). After this convention, they return to Caesar
to discuss the problems in Gaul with him. Their spokesperson is Diviciacus
who draws Caesar’s attention to Ariviovistus, the king of the Germans and an
61 Cf. Rasmussen 1963: 64,who uses this episode to illustrate that the narrator uses speeches
differing in length as a means in the composition of his narrative.
62 Riggsby 2006: 181–185 focuses on the content of the speeches, pointing out, for instance,
that Ariovistus’ speech is meant to show that the Gauls would have been enslaved by the
Germans, if the Romans had not intervened.
63 Pelling 2013: 51.

142 chapter 4
amicus of the Roman senate. In two indirect speeches Diviciacus explains to

Caesar that Ariovistus is a threat to Gaul.64
The first of these speeches is exceptionally long (389 words). It contains mi-
metic elements throughout the speech such as the tricolon barbarum, iracun-
dum, temerarium.65 The use of the temporal adverb nunc, too, derives from the
deictic centre of Diviciacus. The deictic centres of the tenses and that of the ref-
erential expressions alternate in the course of the speech, however.66 At the end
of the speech, the tenses are geared to the deictic centre of the speaker, whereas
the expressions referring to Caesar, Diviciacus’ addressee, seem geared to that of
the narrator (Caesare, Caesarem). Diviciacus asks Caesar to help the Gallic tribes.
Caes. Gall. 1.31.12

Locutus est pro his Diviciacus Haeduus:
…
Ariovistum autem, ut semel Gallorum copias proelio vicerit, quod proelium

factum sit ad Magetobrigam, superbe et crudeliter imperare, obsides no-
bilissimi cuiusque liberos poscere et in eos omnia exempla cruciatusque ed-
ere, si qua res non ad nutum aut ad voluntatem eius facta sit. Hominem esse
barbarum, iracundum, temerarium: non posse eius imperia, diutius sus-
tineri. Nisi quid in Caesare populoque Romano sit auxilii, omnibus Gallis
idem esse faciendum quod Helvetii fecerint, ut domo emigrent, aliud domi-
cilium, alias sedes, remotas a Germanis, petant fortunamque, quaecumque
accidat, experiantur. haec si enuntiata Ariovisto sint, non dubitare quin de
omnibus obsidibus, qui apud eum sint, gravissimum supplicium sumat.
Caesarem vel auctoritate sua atque exercitus vel recenti victoria vel nomine
populi Romani deterrere posse, ne maior multitudo Germanorum Rhenum
traducatur, Galliam que omnem ab Ariovisti iniuria posse defendere.
Diviciacus the Haeduan spoke on their behalf, saying that [...]; that, hav-
ing once conquered the forces of the Gauls in battle near Magetobriga,
Ariovistus was exercising a proud and cruel tyranny, demanding as hos-
tages the children of the greatest nobles, and perpetrating upon them
64 On the role of speeches and thoughts in the characterization of Ariovistus, see

Tsitsiou-Chelidoni 2010: 131–135.
65 Rasmussen 1963: 63 names this speech as an example of an indirect speech that
approaches the form of direct speech (“die letzte Stufe der indirekten Reden”).
66 For this phenomenon see section 2.3.2.1 and my discussion of Ariovistus’ speech in Caes.
Gall. 1.43 and that of Vercingetorix in Caes. Gall. 7.20.

all the direst forms of torture, if anything be not performed at his nod or
at his pleasure; that he was a passionate, a reckless barbarian, the tyran-
nies of which they could endure no longer; that unless some means of
assistance was to be found in Caesar and in the Roman people, all the
Gauls must needs do just what the Helvetians had done—emigrate, to
seek another habitation, other abodes far from the Germans, and risk any
fortune that may befall them; that, if these remarks be reported to Ario-
vistus, he made no doubt that he would inflict the severest punishment
on all the hostages in his keeping; that Caesar, by his own and his army’s
influence, or by your his victory, or by the name of the Roman people,
could prevent the crossing of a larger host of Germans over the Rhine,
and defend the whole of Gaul from the outrage of Ariovistus.
Following the grammatical rules on references to the addressees, the first

clause of Diviciacus’ actual request could have been formulated as Nisi quid in
eo populoque sit auxilii. There are two possible explanations for the use of the
name Caesar. Either Diviciacus is making an official statement, comparable to
the official statement of Divico in Caes. Gall. 1.13.3-5, or the narrator uses his
own deictic centre for these referential expressions. A reason to do the latter
would be the avoidance of confusion between Caesar and Ariovistus, who at
this point in the speech would be the first candidate as the referent of eo, given
that he was the discourse topic of the preceding clause.
In any case, the use of the name has an important side-effect. The abun-
dant use of Caesar’s name is an important strategy of the narrator according to
Rambaud.67 Here, it seems to emphasize that Caesar and the Roman people are
necessary to solve these Gallic problems (cf. the plea of the Haeduans in Caes.
Gall. 1.11.13). Diviciacus is not just sketching the general situation in Gaul.
He is explaining it to Caesar because Caesar is the only person, together with
the Roman people, that can solve the problems and, more importantly from a
Roman perspective, that can also prevent other Gallic tribes from going adrift
and causing unrest in the Roman province.
Diviciacus’ speech has been compared with an informational excursion by
Rasmussen in that it provides the narratees, as it does Caesar, with the neces-
sary information about the state of affairs in Gaul.68 The form of a speech is a
67 Rambaud 1966: 196–198.

68 Rasmussen 1963: 81. Rasmussen 1963: 83 explicitly discusses this function of (indirect)
speech in Caesar, arguing that indirect discourse in the first book of Bellum Gallicum
takes over the function of an informational excursion.

144 chapter 4
means to present this information as part of the narrative. This presentational

form seems to contribute to the idea of an ongoing sequence of (successful)
events, which together constitute the narrative of the first book.69
At the same time, the speech may not only convince Caesar that Roman
help is necessary but also convinces the narratees. Thus, Diviciacus’ speech
functions to inform and persuade both on the level of the story world and on
the level of the narrator and the narratees.
After this first long speech of Diviciacus, Caesar’s attention is drawn to the
Sequanians because they do not act like the other Gauls but instead stare sul-
lenly upon the ground. Diviciacus explains their pressing situation in a second
indirect speech (54 words): Ariovistus is within their borders and has com-
plete power over them. Caesar promises that he will concern himself with the
matter. In a short indirect speech he suggests that he intends to solve the prob-
lem not with fighting but by means of diplomacy (beneficio suo et auctoritate).
The rest of caput 33 is dedicated to Caesar’s considerations about the mat-
ter. His line of thought is cut up into eight pieces, i.e. it is presented in a par-
titioned form.70 The partitioned thought consists of seven indirect thoughts
and one possible instance of free indirect thought. The first indirect thought
anticipates his conclusion: he needs to act. The thought announces (multae
res) the many aspects that contribute to his conclusion. Each of these aspects
is introduced by its own verb of thinking or realising, which has the effect that
Caesar seems to unravel the matter in a thorough and systematic way. This is
enhanced by the use of the imperfect, which indicates that all states of affairs
are contemporaneous to each other and, thus, suggests that Caesar takes all
these different aspects of the problem into consideration at once:71
Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-34.1

Et secundum ea multae res eum hortabantur quare sibi eam rem cog-
itandam et suscipiendam putaret, in primis quod Haeduos, fratres
69 Rasmussen 1963: 83: “Die oratio obliqua übernimmt im I. Buch die Funktion, ethnogra-
phische Sachverhalte in den Gang der Handlung einzuflechten. Hier ist alles Funktional-
ität und Mittel, das Geschehen als einen folgerichtigen Ablauf darzustellen.”
70 Partitioned thoughts occur at 9 instances in Caes. Gall. 1 and 7. The thoughts are almost
exclusively Caesar’s (but see Labienus’ thoughts in Caes. Gall. 7.59.3-6). They can be
found in Caes. Gall. 1.7.5, 1.19.1, 1.33.2, 7.1.4, 7.6.2, 7.10.1, 7.21.3, 7.33.1 and 7.59.3. For
partitioned speeches in Bellum Gallicum, see Caes. Gall. 1.43.4-9.
71 Oldsjö 2001: 439 observes that the imperfect tense is frequently used to introduce a
“mental state” in his corpus (Caes. Gall. 1 en Civ. 1).

consanguineosque saepe numero a senatu appellatos, in servitute atque

in dicione videbat Germanorum teneri eorumque obsides esse apud Ari-
ovistum ac Sequanos intellegebat; quod in tanto imperio populi Romani
turpissimum sibi et rei publicae esse arbitrabatur. Paulatim autem Ger-
manos consuescere Rhenum transire et in Galliam magnam eorum multi-
tudinem venire populo Romano periculosum videbat, neque sibi homines
feros ac barbaros temperaturos existimabat quin, cum omnem Galliam
occupavissent, ut ante Cimbri Teutonique fecissent, in provinciam exirent
atque inde in Italiam contenderent, praesertim cum Sequanos a provincia
nostra Rhodanus divideret; quibus rebus quam maturrime occurrendum
putabat. Ipse autem Ariovistus tantos sibi spiritus, tantam arrogantiam
sumpserat, ut ferendus non videretur.
[34] Quam ob rem placuit ei ut ad Ariovistum legatos mitteret,
And straightway many considerations induced him to suppose that he must

take thought and action in the matter. In the first place, he could see that
the Haeduans, often hailed by the Senate as brethren and kinsmen, were
fast bound in slavery and subjection to the Germans, and he was aware
that their hostages were with Ariovistus and the Sequani. This, considering
the greatness of the Roman empire, he deemed to be an utter disgrace to
himself and to the state. Next, he could see that the Germans were becom-
ing gradually accustomed to cross over the Rhine, and that the arrival of a
great host of them in Gaul was dangerous for the Roman people. Nor did he
suppose that barbarians so fierce would stop short after seizing the whole
of Gaul; but rather, like the Cimbri and Teutoni before them, they would
break forth into the Province, and push on thence into Italy, especially as
there was but the Rhone to separate the Sequani from the Roman Province.
All this, he felt, must be faced without a moment’s delay. As for Ariovistus
himself, he had assumed such airs, such arrogance, that he seemed insuf-
ferable. He resolved, therefore, to send deputies to Ariovistus,
Caesar is thinking to himself but the formulations in his thoughts seem to be

those of an orator convincing his public that action is absolutely necessary
(examples are in bold). Especially the use of provincia nostra shows that, in the
end, this orator is not only Caesar but also the narrator, who tries to convince
his narratees by means of Caesar’s ponderings.
Putabat concludes the long series of imperfect tense forms and governs an-
other articulation of Caesar’s conclusion on what to do. The next sentence is
presented in the pluperfect indicative (sumpserat) and could be interpreted
as free indirect thought. Especially the use of tantos spiritus and tantam

146 chapter 4
arrogantiam seems to reflect Caesar’s opinion. Apart from that, quam ob rem
in the following sentence refers to all these sentences together as Caesar’s mo-
tivation for placuit. The particular form of this clause emphasizes that Ariovis-
tus’ arrogant behaviour is an objective fact that Caesar takes into consideration
in his decision-making process.72
After these long deliberations, Caesar decides to get into contact with Ariovis-
tus and sends messengers to ask him for a meeting. This is the start of their first
conversation, a conversation held from a distance. In this conversation, Caesar
tries to communicate with Ariovistus, while Ariovistus does not seem willing
to interact. He seems to talk about Caesar, rather than to him. I base this state-
ment on the expressions referring to Ariovistus and Caesar in their respective
speeches. They are each others addressees and this would mean that, in indirect
speech, they are referred to by means of a pronoun or a zero reference. This is in-
deed the case in Caesar’s messages to Ariovistus but in Ariovistus’ responses Cae-
sar’s name is used repeatedly. This tendency is illustrated in their first messages.

Quam ob rem placuit ei ut ad Ariovistum legatos mitteret, qui ab eo pos-
tularent uti aliquem locum medium utrisque conloquio deligeret: velle
sese de re publica et summis utriusque rebus cum eo agere. Ei legationi
Ariovistus respondit: si quid ipsi a Caesare opus esset, sese ad eum ven-
turum fuisse; si quid ille se velit, illum ad se venire oportere. Praeterea se
neque sine exercitu in eas partes Galliae venire audere quas Caesar possi-
deret, neque exercitum sine magno commeatu atque molimento in unum
locum contrahere posse. Sibi autem mirum videri quid in sua Gallia, quam
bello vicisset, aut Caesari aut omnino populo Romano negotii esset.
He resolved, therefore, to send deputies to Ariovistus to request of him

the choice of some half-way station between them for a parley, as it was
his desire to discuss with him matters of state and of the highest impor-
tance to each of them. To the deputation Ariovistus made reply that if
he had had need of aught from Caesar, he would have come to him, and
if Caesar desired aught of him, he ought to come to him; moreover, that
he did not venture without an army to come into those parts of Gaul
which Caesar was occupying, and that he could not concentrate his army
without great exertion in the matter of supply; and that he found himself
72 See my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.19.2, where I also give other examples of possible free
indirect thought in my Caesar corpus.

wondering what business either Caesar or the Roman people might have
in that Gaul which he had made his own by conquest in war.
Caesar’s name is mentioned three times in Ariovistus’ speech, where a pronoun

or zero reference would have sufficed. We have seen this at other instances as
well and the use of a name could be explained in those cases either because
of the official character of the statement or because of the use of the deictic
centre of the narrator.73 The first explanation does not seem to hold here but
one could argue for the latter. I would argue for a third explanation, viz. the
excerpt evokes a situation in the mind of the narratee in which Ariovistus uses
the name of Caesar when talking to his deputation.
In any case, the use of Caesar’s name here has an interesting effect. It en-
hances the accusing and condescending tone of the speech because, in this
way, it seems to be a speech about Caesar rather than a serious response to
his request. One might, therefore, conclude from this speech that Ariovistus is
portrayed as a person with a haughty attitude, a person who thinks he is too
good to talk with Caesar but prefers to make statements about him.
In reply to Ariovistus’ speech, Caesar warns him that he is insulting the Ro-
man people, thus pointing out the arrogance of the German king again. Caesar
utters several demands and concludes his lengthy indirectly presented reply
(132 words) with the threat that, if Ariovistus does not meet his demands, he
will proceed to action. Ariovistus’ reaction is even longer (145 words) and full
of arrogant war rhetoric that leaves no doubt that further negotiations would
be pointless. When Caesar receives this reaction, he also hears complaints and
reports on further unrest in Gaul. Caesar does not send another reply to Ari-
ovistus but instead starts a march towards him and soon reaches Besançon.
When the Romans stay in this city for several days to gather supplies, Gauls and
merchants spread stories about the Germans among the soldiers, causing fear and
distress in the whole army. The narrator summarizes these stories by means of
two instances of indirect speech, while suggesting by means of the plural vocibus
and the imperfect verb forms praedicabant and dicebant that the stories where
told more than once. Despite their shortness, the indirect speeches contain sev-
eral elements that are geared to the deictic centre of the speaking character(s).
Caes. Gall. 1.39.1

Dum paucos dies ad Vesontionem rei frumentariae commeatusque
causa moratur, ex percontatione nostrorum vocibusque Gallorum ac
73 See Caes. Gall. 1.13.3-5 and 1.31.12.

148 chapter 4
mercatorum, qui ingenti magnitudine corporum Germanos, incredibili

virtute atque exercitatione in armis esse praedicabant (saepe numero sese
cum his congressos ne vultum quidem atque aciem oculorum dicebant
ferre potuisse), tantus subito timor omnem exercitum occupavit ut non
mediocriter omnium mentes animosque perturbaret.
During a few days halt near Vesontio for the provision of corn and other
supplies, a panic arose from inquiries made by our troops and remarks
uttered by Gauls and traders, who affirmed that the Germans were men
of a mighty frame and an incredible valour and skill at arms; for they
themselves (so they said) at meetings with the Germans had often been
unable even to endure their look and the keenness of their eyes. So great
was the panic, and so suddenly did it seize upon all the army, that it af-
fected in serious fashion the intelligence and the courage of all ranks.
The exaggerations (ingenti magnitudine, incredibili virtute atque exercita-

tione) seem geared to the deictic centre of speaking merchants, as well as the
description vultum atque aciem oculorum in the second speech. In the second
part, ne … quidem derives from the speaking characters and expresses the dis-
crepancy between the frequent interaction with the Germans and the undi-
minished fear of their appearances.
A short indirect speech with some elements geared to the deictic centre of the
speaking character is a common device for the narrator of Bellum Gallicum to
represent speeches in a way that is efficient but that nevertheless gives a sugges-
tion of the tone and communicative goals of the speaking character. The speak-
er’s excitement, indignation, despair or anxiety shimmers through the short and
indirect representation of the speech. Usually, the effect is created by means of
mimetic elements, such as particles, specific adverbs and adjectives or rhetorical
figures. In Caes. Gall. 1.39.1, even these short indirect speeches display the sensa-
tionalism of the Gauls and merchants. In just a few words, the narrator indicates
the provocative and inciting tone of the stories told to the troops.
Then, the narrator sketches the resulting atmosphere of despair and low
morale in the camp. The words tantus timor and their elaboration in the ut-
clause describe a collective sentiment in the camp and give a brief insight into
what the situation was like for the troops, a rarely found narrative technique in
speech and thought representation in Bellum Gallicum. Here, it seems to under-
score a theme of the dangerous effect of gossip or even speeches in general.74
74 James 2000.

Caesar perceives the change in atmosphere in the camp and receives word
that some commanders fear that their troops will not listen to them when they
are ordered to leave. He reacts with a rebuke that is presented as an extraor-
dinary long indirect speech, the longest speech by Caesar in my corpus (369
words).75
Not only its length, but also the use of Caesar’s deictic centre for many el-
ements results in the impression that this speech by Caesar is quoted almost
verbatim.76 Despite the indirect presentation, the narratees are given a seem-
ingly accurate idea of the tone of the speech, right from the start. This tone is
evoked not only by means of the introductory verb incusavit but also by, for
instance, the repetition of the interrogative pronouns in the first sentence, the
superlative in the second sentence and the question starting with cur.

Haec cum animadvertisset, convocato consilio omniumque ordinum ad id
consilium adhibitis centurionibus, vehementer eos incusavit: primum, quod
aut quam in partem aut quo consilio ducerentur sibi quaerendum aut cog-
itandum putarent. Ariovistum se consule cupidissime populi Romani amicitiam
adpetisse; cur hunc tam temere quisquam ab officio discessurum iudicaret?
Sibi quidem persuaderi cognitis suis postulatis atque aequitate condicionum
perspecta eum neque suam neque populi Romani gratiam repudiaturum.
75 This speech is discussed in many scholarly contributions. Rambaud, accuses Caesar or the
narrator of demagoguery (Rambaud 1966: 127) and argues that the commanders protested
against the illegality of the war, but that the narrator whisks this away by telling that it was fear
that withheld them from fighting. Other commentators focus on the portrayal of Caesar’s
character and leadership (e.g. Gelzer 1968: 110–1, Kahn 1986: 233, Meier 1995: 244) in their
discussion of this passage, often in comparison to Dio’s version of this episode (38.35-
47). James 2000: 64 singles out the theme that words can be treacherous. He argues that
“The audience is given a privileged view of the great Julius Caesar in action, and the implicit
message is that Caesar (the author) no longer has anything to hide, or at least not from the
reading audience. [...] The implied author makes a show of revealing all his tricks, but this
openness is a mask.”
76 Rasmussen 1963: 63 names this speech as an example of an indirect speech that ap-
proaches the form of direct speech (“die letzte Stufe der indirekten Reden”). The use of
tenses in this speech shows several shifts between the two deictic centres. The speech
ends with tenses geared to the deictic centre of the speaker, perhaps expressing an em-
phasis on Caesar’s determination to go after Ariovistus. A variation in the deictic centre of
tenses is in my opinion a means for the narrator to structure a speech. Here, the structure
of the speech is also brought about by means of explicit structuring devices such as pri-
mum, denique, itaque and praeterea.

150 chapter 4
Remarking this, he convened a council of war, and summoned thereto

the centurions of all grades. Then indignantly he reprimanded them, first
and foremost because they thought it their business to ask or to consider
in which direction or with what purpose they were being led. He said
that Ariovistus in his own consulship sought most eagerly the friendship
of the Roman people; that why should anyone conclude that he intends
so recklessly to depart from his duty? That for himself, he was persuaded
that, when his demands were made known, and the fairness of his terms
understood, Ariovistus would not reject the goodwill of himself or the
Roman people.
The second sentence of the speech concerns Ariovistus as an amicus (Ariovis-

tum to repudiaturum) and anticipates the further course of the war against Ar-
iovistus in two ways. On the one hand, Caesar argues here that the diplomatic
stage of the war is not over yet because Ariovistus is a friend of the Romans and
should therefore be amenable to their requests. This expectation will indeed
seem to come true when Ariovistus reopens the negotiations in Caes. Gall. 1.42.
On the other hand, this part of the speech is a brief sketch of what the Romans
could reasonably expect from Ariovistus, an expectation that contrasts sharply
with Ariovistus’ later aggression. In the light of his later aggression, this part
of the speech emphasizes the brutality and arrogance of his deeds.
In the rest of the speech, Caesar first presents arguments why the Romans
will be able to defeat the Germans if Ariovistus does proceed to aggression.
References to the Romans and the Roman army in this part of the speech all
derive from the narrator’s deictic centre as they are indicated by forms of nos
and noster exercitus. Thus, the speech seems to convey to the narratees the
sentiment of superiority that Caesar tried to evoke in his troops.
The speech ends with a claim on the mandatory trust of troops in their com-
mander and an invitation to show this trust. The speech turns out to be an
effective pep talk, given the evaluation of the narrator.
Caes. Gall. 1.41.1

Hac oratione habita mirum in modum conversae sunt omnium mentes
summaque alacritas et cupiditas belli gerendi innata est, ...
By the delivery of this speech the spirit of all ranks was changed in a re-
markable fashion; the greatest keenness and eagerness for active service
was engendered,
The troops and commanders apologize to Caesar and Caesar marches with his
whole army towards Ariovistus.

When Ariovistus learns that Caesar has come rather close to him, he re-
opens the negotiations.

Cognito Caesaris adventu Ariovistus legatos ad eum mittit: quod antea
de conloquio postulasset, id per se fieri licere, quoniam propius accessisset
se que id sine periculo facere posse existimaret. non respuit condicionem
Caesar, iamque eum ad sanitatem reverti arbitrabatur, cum id, quod antea
petenti denegasset, ultro polliceretur, magnamque in spem veniebat pro
suis tantis populi que R. in eum beneficiis cognitis suis postulatis fore, uti
pertinacia desisteret, dies conloquio dictus est ex eo die quintus.
When he learnt of Caesar’s approach Ariovistus sent deputies to him to

announce that he was now ready to do what Caesar had before demanded
as touching a parley, because he had come nearer, and Ariovistus believed
that he could comply without risk. Caesar did not reject the proposal,
and he was inclined to think that Ariovistus was at length returning to a
proper frame of mind, inasmuch as of his own motion he proffered what
he had previously refused on request. Moreover, he began to have a good
hope that, in consideration of the signal benefits conferred upon him by
Caesar and the Roman people, Ariovistus would abandon his obstinacy
when he knew Caesar’s demands.
It seems significant that in this second conversation the speeches of Ariovistus

contain ‘normal’ references to his addressee Caesar (zero references in postu-
lasset, accessisset), whereas he seemed to be talking about Caesar rather than
to Caesar in their earlier conversation. Here, it is Caesar who does not really
engage. His answer to this first request is not quoted but it is only referred to
by means of litotes: non respuit. More attention is given to his thoughts on Ar-
iovistus. From these thoughts we can derive that negotiations are the solution
that anyone in their right mind would choose (cf. ad sanitatem) and that Cae-
sar and the Roman people deserve that Ariovistus gives up his stubbornness.
This seems to be the strategy of the narrator throughout this conversation:
Ariovistus keeps making further demands regarding their meeting (postulavit in
Caes. Gall. 1.42.4, postulavit in 1.43.3) and although Caesar agrees to all of them,
he is never quoted in an (indirect) speech telling Ariovistus that he will meet his
demands. Rather, the narrator presents Caesar’s deliberations and decisions on
how to meet Ariovistus’ terms in such a way that these important negotiations
will take place without endangering himself (Caes. Gall. 1.42.5-6). Thus, the nar-
rator presents Caesar not as pandering to all Ariovistus’ whims but as deciding on
his own course of action.

152 chapter 4
Finally, Caesar and Ariovistus meet face to face and Caesar opens the nego-
tiations:

Ubi eo ventum est, Caesar initio orationis sua senatusque in eum benefi-
cia commemoravit, quod rex appellatus esset a senatu, quod amicus, quod
munera amplissime missa; quam rem et paucis contigisse et pro magnis
hominum officiis consuesse tribui docebat; illum, cum neque aditum neque
causam postulandi iustam haberet, beneficio ac liberalitate sua ac senatus ea
praemia consecutum. Docebat etiam quam veteres quamque iustae causae
necessitudinis ipsis cum Haeduis intercederent, quae senatus consulta quo-
tiens quamque honorifica in eos facta essent, ut omni tempore totius Galliae
principatum Haedui tenuissent, prius etiam quam nostram amicitiam ad-
petissent. Populi Romani hanc esse consuetudinem, ut socios atque amicos
non modo sui nihil deperdere, sed gratia, dignitate, honore auctiores velit esse;
quod vero ad amicitiam populi Romani attulissent, id iis eripi quis pati posset?
Postulavit deinde eadem quae legatis in mandatis dederat: ne aut Haeduis
aut eorum sociis bellum inferret, obsides redderet, si nullam partem Germano-
rum domum remittere posset, at ne quos amplius Rhenum transire pateretur.
When they arrived at the spot Caesar began his speech by relating the
benefits conferred upon Ariovistus by himself and by the Senate; that
the Senate had called him king and friend, and had sent gifts with a most
lavish hand. That this privilege, as he pointed out, had fallen to the lot of
but few, and was usually granted in consideration of great personal ser-
vices; that he [Ariovistus], though he had no right to audience of the Sen-
ate, and no just cause of claim, had obtained the rewards in question by
the favour and generosity of Caesar and of the Senate. He proceeded to
show how long-established and how just were the reasons for a close re-
lationship between Rome and the Haeduans; that the frequency and the
distinction of the Senate’s decrees in respect of them; that the manner in
which, even before they had sought the friendship of Rome, the Haedu-
ans had always held the primacy of all Gaul; that it was the tradition of
the Roman people to desire that its allies and friends should not only lose
none of their possessions, but should enjoy increase of influence, dignity,
and distinction; on the other hand, who, he asked, could endure that they
should be despoiled of what they had brought with them to the friend-
ship of the Roman people? He then made the same demands as those
which he had given in his instructions to the deputies—that is to say, that
Ariovistus must not make war on the Haeduans or on their allies; that he

must restore the hostages; and that, if he could not send back home any
part of the Germans, he must not suffer any more to cross the Rhine.
Caesar’s opening speech is presented in several parts, each with its own governing
verb. By presenting a speech in a partitioned form, the narrator explicitly orga-
nizes the structure of the speech, whereas one could say that in a longer non-
fragmented indirect speech the organizing role is geared to the deictic centre of
the speaking character.77 Here, this presentation has the effect that Caesar seems
to explain the matter to Ariovistus in the structured and patient way that resem-
bles that of a gentle teacher (cf. the verb docere). Caesar first explains to Ariovistus
that Ariovistus had been favoured by the Roman senate and then goes on to ex-
plain the special relation between the Romans and the Haeduans. The repetition
of docebat seems to emphasize Caesar’s calm and thoughtful attitude towards
Ariovistus. It is only in the last part that Caesar repeats his previous demands.
When compared to Caesar’s balanced and clearly structured speech, the
reaction of Ariovistus is an uncontrolled torrent of words.78 Especially the
first half of the speech contains very little structuring. Ariovistus mainly talks
about his own virtues and actions, as the narrator announces in the introduc-
tory sentence.

Ariovistus ad postulata Caesaris pauca respondit, de suis virtutibus multa
praedicavit: transisse Rhenum sese non sua sponte, sed rogatum et arcessitum
a Gallis; non sine magna spe magnisque praemiis domum propinquosque
77 In my Caesar corpus, a group of 45 reports of speech acts and indirect speeches form a
longer speech together with other passages, resulting in 17 partitioned speeches. The par-
titioned speeches in Bellum Gallicum are the following: Caes. Gall. 1.8, negat and ostendit
(17 words in sum); 1.30 ad caesarem gratulatum convenerunt, petierunt and sanxerunt
(97words in sum); 1.43 docebat, docebat and postulavit (134 words in sum); 7.1 queruntur,
demonstrant and miserantur (11 words in sum); 7.2 pollicentur, petunt and profitentur (46
words in sum); 7.4 iubet and constituit (16 words in sum); 7.15 procumbunt and dicunt (35
words in sum); 7.21 conclamat and statuunt (41 words in sum); 7.41 exponent and demon-
strant (62 words in sum); 7.43 demonstrant and decernunt (8 words in sum); 7.45 ostendit,
monet and proponit (29 words in sum); 7.52 reprehendit, exposuit and confirmatis (116
words in sum); 7.60 cohortatus, iubet and imperat (35 words in sum); 7.64 imperat, consti-
tuit, iubet and dicit (51 words in sum); 7.71 mandat, proponit, obtestaturque, demonstrat,
iubet and constituit (73 words in sum); 7.86 docet and cohortatur (13 words in sum). For
partitioned thoughts in Bellum Gallicum, see my note on Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-34.1.
78 Riggsby 2006: 185–187 discusses how Ariovistus, to a Roman audience, misses the point
as far as the concepts amicitia and fides are concerned.

154 chapter 4
reliquisse; sedes habere in Gallia ab ipsis concessas, obsides ipsorum volun-

tate datos; stipendium capere iure belli, quod victores victis imponere consuer-
int. Non sese Gallis sed Gallos sibi bellum intulisse: omnes Galliae c ivitates ad
se oppugnandum venisse ac contra se castra habuisse; eas omnes copias a
se uno proelio pulsas ac superatas esse. Si iterum experiri velint, se iterum
paratum esse decertare; si pace uti velint, iniquum esse de stipendio recusare,
quod sua voluntate ad id tempus pependerint. Amicitiam populi Romani
sibi ornamento et praesidio, non detrimento esse oportere, idque se hac spe
petisse. Si per populum Romanum stipendium remittatur et dediticii sub-
trahantur, non minus libenter sese recusaturum populi Romani amicitiam
quam adpetierit. Quod multitudinem Germanorum in Galliam traducat, id
se sui muniendi, non Galliae oppugnandae causa facere; eius rei testimonium
esse quod nisi rogatus non venerit et quod bellum non intulerit sed defenderit.
Se prius in Galliam venisse quam populum Romanum. Numquam ante hoc
tempus exercitum populi Romani Galliae provinciae finibus egressum.
To the demands of Caesar Ariovistus replied in brief, but he dilated at

length upon his own good qualities. That he had crossed the Rhine, he
said, not of his own desire, but upon the request and summons of the
Gauls; that he had left home and kindred not without great hope of great
rewards; that the settlements he occupied in Gaul were granted by the
natives, that the hostages had been given with the consent of the natives;
that the tribute he took was by right of war, as customarily enforced by
conquerors upon conquered; that he had not made war upon the Gauls,
but they upon him; that all the states of Gaul had come to attack him and
had set up their camp against him; that all their forces had been beaten
and overcome by him in a single action; that, if they wished to try the
issue again, he was prepared to fight it out again; that, if they wished to
enjoy peace, it was unjust to refuse the payment of tribute which of their
own consent they had paid hitherto; that the friendship of the Roman
people ought to be a distinction and a security to him, not a hindrance;
and that he had sought it with that hope; that, if through the agency of
the Roman people the tribute were to be remitted and the surrendered
persons withdrawn, he would refuse the friendship of the Roman people
no less heartily than he had sought it; that, as for the host of Germans that
he was bringing over into Gaul, his object was to protect himself, not to
attack Gaul; and that the proof thereof was that he had not come except
upon request, and that his warfare had been defensive, not offensive; that
he had come into Gaul before the Roman people; that never heretofore
had an army of the Roman people left the borders of the Province of Gaul.

In this part of the speech, the present and perfect tense are used for the subjunc-
tives (e.g. consuerint, remittatur), despite the use of past tenses in the surround-
ing narrative.79 This means that the tense usage in this part is geared to the deictic
centre of the character. In addition, several mimetic elements occur in this part of
the speech, the litotes non sine magna spe, for instance, or the repetition of iterum
and the irony expressed in that phrase. All in all, the presentation of this part of
the speech suggests that it is a rather accurate account of Ariovistus’ unstructured
speech. It is presented as an asyndetical, elliptic enumeration in which his con-
ceited and haughty tone are clearly audible.
After Ariovistus’ claim that he came to Gaul first, the narrator subtly inter-
venes and starts using his own deictic centre for the tenses (vellet, veniret, opor-
teret, faceret, interpellaremus), the person of one finite verb form (interpellare-
mus) and referential expressions (nostram, nostros, nos):
Caes. Gall. 1.44.8

Quid sibi vellet? Cur in suas possessiones veniret? Provinciam suam hanc
esse Galliam, sicut illam nostram. Ut ipsi concedi non oporteret, si in nos-
tros fines impetum faceret, sic item nos esse iniquos, quod in suo iure se
interpellaremus.
[he asked] what Caesar meant? Why he came into his sphere of occupa-
tion? That this was his province of Gaul, as the other was ours; that, as it
was not right to give way to him, if he made an attack on our territory, so
likewise we were unjust in obstructing him in his own jurisdiction.
First of all, the change in the deictic centre of tenses and referential expres-
sions has a structuring function. It marks the end of the first part of the speech,
Ariovistus’ rant, and the beginning of another part in which Ariovistus directly
addresses Caesar. It is almost as if the narrator takes over the organizational
task of the speaking character Ariovistus, who fails to present a structured ora-
tion and just says what comes to his mind first.80
79 Note, however, that velint (both in si iterum experiri velint and in si pace uti velint) is not a
present tense form in all manuscripts. The manuscript family ß has imperfect tense forms
(vellent and pacem mallent respectively).
80 The speech of Ariovistus contains no discourse markers such as primo, deinde or tum.
This becomes even more significant when we compare it with Caesar’s previous speech,
or with other long indirect speeches in the corpus. Usually, long indirect speeches con-
tain discourse markers (e.g. Caesar’s speeches in Caes. Gall. 1.14, 1.40 or Vercingetorix’
speeches in Caes. Gall. 7.14, 7.29).

156 chapter 4
In combination with the use of the narrator’s deictic centre, the deictic
centre of Ariovistus is also used in this excerpt. The rhetorical questions bring
about Ariovistus’ accusatory tone of voice.81 The explicit concomitant use of
two deictic centres may be interpreted as emphasising the conflict between
Caesar and Ariovistus, as Dangel observes.82
Another possible effect of the form of this passage could be the evocation
of indignation in (Roman) narratees. The accusations of Ariovistus are specif-
ically aimed at Caesar and in the first two sentences of this excerpt Caesar is
indeed the subject (vellet, veniret). In the next sentence, however, Caesar be-
comes backgrounded because the narrator uses nostram. The four referents in
this sentence are two parts of the province, Ariovistus (suam) and the Roman
people (nostram) – Caesar himself is out of sight. Thus, the narrator manages
to present accusations against Caesar as accusations against the Roman people
as a whole. In the final sentence of this excerpt Ariovistus accuses the Romans
of being disingenuous and especially this accusation must have been effective
in evoking the indignation of the Roman narratee.
This excerpt is the excerpt that stands out most in this speech, as none of
the other excerpts are geared to the deictic centre of the narrator to this extent.
Apparently, the narrator wanted to highlight the statement of Ariovistus that
both he and the Romans owned specific parts of Gaul and that the Romans
were unfair (see Caesar’s reaction in Caes. Gall. 1.45). In the following excerpt,
for instance, the Roman people are referred to by means of the more neutral
expressions Romanis and populi Romani.
Caes. Gall. 1.44.9

Quod fratres a senatu Haeduos appellatos diceret, non se tam barbarum
neque tam imperitum esse rerum ut non sciret neque bello Allobrogum prox-
imo Haeduos Romanis auxilium tulisse neque ipsos in iis contentionibus quas
Haedui secum et cum Sequanis habuissent auxilio populi Romani usos esse.
… that, as for his [Caesar’s] statement that the Haeduans were called
“brothers”, he [Ariovistus] was not such a barbarian, not so ignorant of
81 Andrewes 1937 observes that indirect questions depending on a past tense generally con-
tain a past tense subjunctive in Caesar, even though preceding clauses in the indirect
speech contained present and perfect tenses and mentions quid sibi vellet as an example.
The following past tenses are in his opinion a result from this first past tense.
82 Dangel 1995: 105. She also assigns hanc to the deictic centre of the speaking character,
but I would explain the use of hanc here from the contrast with illam, rather than from
the deictic centre of the character.

affairs as not to know that neither in the last campaign against the Allo-
broges had the Haeduans rendered assistance to the Romans, nor in the
disputes of the Haeduans with himself and the Sequani had they enjoyed
the assistance of the Roman people.
As in the previous part, past tenses are used in the subjunctive forms, indicating
the deictic centre of the narrator. The referential expressions in this excerpt take
a more neutral form, however, as the Roman people is no longer referred to by
means of first person pronouns but by means of the expressions Romani and popu-
lus Romanus. The narrator seems to retreat in the representation of this accusation.
Caes. Gall. 1.44.10

Debere se suspicari simulata Caesarem amicitia, quod exercitum in Gallia
habeat, sui opprimendi causa habere.
… that he was bound to suspect, in spite of pretended friendship, that

Caesar had an army in Gaul for the purpose of crushing him.
In this next part, the tense of habeat derives from Ariovistus’ deictic centre but
the referential expression Caesarem, a name referring to the addressee, derives
from the narrator. The regular expression, eum, could have been confusing
since that might have been interpreted as referring to the populus Romanus of
the previous sentence.
Caes. Gall. 1.44.11-13

Qui nisi decedat atque exercitum deducat ex his regionibus, sese illum non
pro amico sed pro hoste habiturum.
Quodsi eum interfecerit, multis sese nobilibus principibusque populi Romani

gratum esse facturum (id se ab ipsis per eorum nuntios compertum habere),
quorum omnium gratiam atque amicitiam eius morte redimere posset.
Quod si decessisset et liberam possessionem Galliae sibi tradidisset, magno

se illum praemio remuneraturum et quaecumque bella geri vellet sine ullo
eius labore et periculo confecturum.
… that, unless, therefore, Caesar departed and withdrew his army from
this locality, he would regard him, not as a friend, but as an enemy; and
that, if he put Caesar to death, he would gratify many nobles and leaders
of the Roman people; that he knew this for certain from themselves, by

158 chapter 4
the messengers sent on behalf of all whose favour and friendship he could
purchase by his [Caesar’s] death; that, if, however, he [Caesar] departed
and resigned to him the uninterrupted occupation of Gaul, he would rec-
ompense him by a great reward, and would, without any exertion or risk
on his part, execute any campaigns he might wish to be carried out.
In this last part, Ariovistus sketches three scenarios: Caesar may become his
enemy, he may get killed or he may hand over Gaul. The first scenario is pre-
sented in a type of indirect speech in which the tenses (decedat and deducat)
and the spatial adverbials (ex his regionibus) are geared to the deictic centre of
the character. The last scenario contains tenses geared to the deictic centre of
the narrator (decessisset and tradidisset) and a neutral reference to Gaul (Gal-
liae). The second scenario starts out with the perfect tense form interfecerit
geared to the deictic centre of the speaker but contains an imperfect tense
form posset in the relative clause. Andrewes (1937) explains this imperfect
tense form from the fact that decedat, deducat and interfecerit represented
future and future perfect tense forms respectively, leaving only the imperfect
tense to mark a change to Ariovistus’ present time. The use of the imperfect
tense then brings about, according to Andrewes, the switch to the use of past
tenses for the third scenario.
This sounds convincing but the switch in deictic centre also seems to reveal
a very interesting contrast between the first two scenario’s on the one hand
and the last scenario on the other. In oratio obliqua, the subtle differences be-
tween a realis, potentialis and irrealis are lost, since in all these three cases the
imperfect subjunctive ‘should’ be used. However, it has been suggested that the
narrator of Bellum Gallicum uses present and perfect subjunctives in si-clauses
to avoid an irrealis-interpretation of a realis.83 The narrator has indeed used
present and perfect subjunctives in the first two scenario’s, thus making each
of them recognizable as a realis. In contrast to this, the narrator does nothing
to avoid an irrealis interpretation in the case of the last scenario, the scenario
that, in fact, did not happen. It is very tempting to conclude from this that the
narrator suggests, by means of this variation in types of indirect speech, that
the first two scenario’s, including a death threat, were likely to happen at this
point in time, whereas the last scenario was never an option.
This might be taking it one step too far, however. Perhaps our conclusion
about this last part of the speech should be that, as the speech draws to an end,
the narrator prefers to use his own deictic centre. What started as a speech
83 Kraner et al. 1961, ad 35.3, cf. Utard 2004a: 325.

predominantly geared to the deictic centre of the character, ends as a speech in

which the tenses are geared to the deictic centre of the narrator. The narrator
has used a variation in the use of the deictic centres to structure the speech.
This narratorial structuring strategy occurs thirteen times in this corpus.84 Mi-
metic elements such as particles or figures of speech occur throughout the
speeches, bringing about the tone of the speech and suggesting that the speak-
ing character is responsible for the wording of the speech.
Indirect representations leave room for the narrator to insert mimetic el-
ements while he is able to insert expressions that represent his own point of
view or even serve his own goals. I think this flexibility might be a reason for
the preference of the Caesarian narrator for indirect speech over direct speech.
The speech of Ariovistus ends with a combination of a death threat to Caesar
and an offer of a vast amount of money if Caesar would retreat.85 Caesar responds
neither to the threat nor to the bribe but explains in his response why it is obliga-
tory for Rome to help the Haeduans and states that Gaul belongs to the Gauls.86

Multa a Caesare in eam sententiam dicta sunt quare negotio desistere
non posset: neque suam neque populi Romani consuetudinem pati ut op-
time meritos socios desereret, neque se iudicare Galliam potius esse Ario-
visti quam populi Romani. Bello superatos esse Arvernos et Rutenos a Q.
Fabio Maximo, quibus populus Romanus ignovisset neque in provinciam
redegisset neque stipendium posuisset. Quod si antiquissimum quodque
tempus spectari oporteret, populi Romani iustissimum esse in Gallia impe-
rium; si iudicium senatus observari oporteret, liberam debere esse Galliam,
quam bello victam suis legibus uti voluisset.
Caesar spoke at length for the purpose of showing why he could not give
up the task in hand. That his own practice, he said, and that the practice
84 Speeches partitioned in such an implicit way are the following: Caes. Gall. 1.7, dicerent
(25 words); 1.12, certior factus est (16 words); 1.14, respondit (159 words); 1.20, obsecrare
coepit (96 words); 1.31, locutus est (389 words); 1.34, respondit (67 words); 1.36, respondit
(145 words); 1.40, incusavit (369 words); 1.43, docebat (68 words); 1.44, praedicavit (354
words); 7.20, respondit (84 words); 7.29, consolatus cohortatusque est (110 words); 7.86,
imperat (13 words).
85 Utard 2004a: 332, who focuses on the character portrayal by means of indirect speech,
observes that this threat or ultimatum contributes to the negative portrayal of Ariovistus
and, moreover, that it made it necessary for Caesar to react.
86 Cf. Riggsby 2006: 187.

160 chapter 4
of the Roman people did not suffer the abandonment of allies who had
deserved so well, nor did he admit that Gaul belonged to Ariovistus rather
than to the Roman people; that the Arverni and the Ruteni had been
subdued in a campaign by Quintus Fabius Maximus; that the Roman
people had pardoned them, and had not formed them into a province
nor imposed a tribute; that, if priority of time was to be the standard,
then the sovereignty of the Roman people in Gaul had complete justifica-
tion; that, if the decision of the Senate was to be observed, Gaul should be
free, for after conquest of the country the Senatehad willed that it should
continue to observe its own laws.
Thus, Caesar focuses in his response on the part of Ariovistus’ speech that
was most offensive for Caesar and for the Roman public in general, the part in
which Ariovistus argued that the Romans have no business in Gaul (Caes. Gall.
1.44.8). It was this part of the speech that the narrator highlighted most (see
above), as if he was preparing this reaction by Caesar.
Before Caesar can give any further reactions, he receives a message that Ar-
iovistus’ men are throwing stones at his own men.

Dum haec in conloquio geruntur, Caesari nuntiatum est equites Ariovisti
propius tumulum accedere et ad nostros adequitare, lapides telaque in nos-
tros coicere. Caesar loquendi finem fecit seque ad suos recepit suisque
imperavit ne quod omnino telum in hostes reicerent. Nam etsi sine ullo
periculo legionis delectae cum equitatu proelium fore videbat, tamen com-
mittendum non putabat ut, pulsis hostibus, dici posset eos ab se per fidem
in conloquio circumventos.
During the progress of the parley Caesar was informed that the horse-
men of Ariovistus were approaching nearer the mound, riding up to our
troops, and discharging stones and darts at them. Caesar made an end
of speaking, and, withdrawing to his own men, commanded them not to
discharge a single dart against the enemy in reply. For, although he could
see that a fight between the chosen legion and the horsemen would in-
volve no danger, still he did not think proper, by so beating the enemy,
to make possible the report that after pledge given they had been sur-
rounded by him during a parley.
The message involves the narratees by means of the referential expression ad

nostros and in nostros, emphasising that the German horsemen are pestering

fine Roman soldiers.87 Nevertheless, Caesar orders his men not to react. By
including the mimetic element omnino, the narrator stresses the urgency and
necessity of the command. Thus, he brings about the precariousness of the
situation: the Roman soldiers are provoked and have good reasons to react but
must not do so. Caesar’s firm reaction is explained (nam) by means of tactical
considerations presented in two parts (videbat and putabat). Although his men
are able to defeat the horsemen (videbat), Caesar does not want to be accused
of ending the negotiations (putabat).
All in all, Ariovistus not only stands in sharp contrast with Caesar when we
compare their general behaviour but also when we compare the way in which
their speeches are presented.88 Caesar is a calm and diplomatic negotiator who
utters structured and thoughtful speeches and thinks before he acts. Ariovis-
tus’ speeches are generally long and unstructured. They all contain mimetic
elements that bring about his accusatory, haughty and threatening tone. Thus,
the form of his speeches portrays him as an arrogant and aggressive king.
Ariovistus’ speeches are such that they could very well evoke the indigna-
tion of the narratee. Perhaps the narratees even experience a hint of the alac-
ritas studiumque pugnandi that the Roman soldiers felt when they heard about
Ariovistus’ arrogance and disrespectful actions.
Caes. Gall. 1.46.4

Postea quam in vulgus militum elatum est qua arrogantia in conloquio
Ariovistus usus omni Gallia Romanis interdixisset, impetumque in nostros
eius equites fecissent, eaque res conloquium ut diremisset, multo maior
alacritas studiumque pugnandi maius exercitui iniectum est.
As soon as the common soldiers learnt how arrogantly at the parley

Ariovistus had forbidden all Gaul to the Romans, how his horsemen had
attacked our troops, and how this action had broken off the parley, the
army was inspired with far greater eagerness and enthusiasm for battle.
In this message, the narrator presents Ariovistus’ arrogant dismissal of the right
of the Romans to be in Gaul for the third time (cf. Caes. Gall. 1.44.8, 1.45.1-3).
87 An alternative, more neutral expression would have been Romanos or suos. Cf. suis in
Caes. Gall. 1.22.4 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. See Görler 1976, Reijgwart 1993 and Busch 2005 for the use of nos
and noster in Bellum Gallicum.

162 chapter 4
The message also repeats the incident between his horsemen and Roman sol-
diers. Again nostros is used, involving the narratees in the attack. Lastly, it makes
explicit that the attack was the reason for the end of the diplomatic stage of this
war. Ariovistus and his men are responsible for the ending of this stage.
This prepares the narratees for the fact that Caesar is very reluctant (sev-
eral indirect thoughts in Caes. Gall. 1.47.2-5) to comply with Ariovistus when
he sends requests and demands to continue their conversation (Caes. Gall.
1.47.1). When Caesar finally decides to meet one of Ariovistus’ demands and
sends him two men, the aggression of Ariovistus reaches its climax and Caesar
is proven right in his wariness. Ariovistus yells at the men and is not willing to
listen to them, let alone negotiate.
Caes. Gall. 1.47.6

Quos cum apud se in castris Ariovistus conspexisset, exercitu suo prae-
sente conclamavit: quid ad se venirent? An speculandi causa? Conantes
dicere prohibuit et in catenas coniecit.
But when Ariovistus saw them near him in his camp he called aloud in the
presence of his army, asking why they came to him, if they came to spy?
When they tried to speak he prevented them and flung them into chains.
Ariovistus’ speech is presented in two short questions that are full of suspicion.
The tone of mistrust is enhanced by cutting up what is essentially one ques-
tion (‘are you here to spy on me’) into a part that seems to be a real question
and a part that contains an elliptic rhetorical question. The second part An
speculandi causa? suggests that Ariovistus answers his own question and is not
interested in the real answer.89 The narratees, however, know the real answer
already: the men are there because Ariovistus asked Caesar to send them. Ari-
ovistus, therefore, is behaving in an outrageously unfair way.
The extremely short yet very vivid indirect speech shows once more that the
diplomatic stage has come to an end. Caesar has tried but speech now is no
longer the means to solve the conflict. The narrator nicely emphasizes this by
stating that Ariovistus prevents any further speech of the diplomats (conantes
dicere) by flinging them into chains. A physical battle has become inevitable
and is narrated in the next episode.
89 Note the use of an. Bolkestein 1990a: 21–22 argues that this use of an is excluded from
indirect speech representation because it is oriented to the interaction between speakers.
Indeed, an does not occur in the indirect speeches of my corpus, making this speech even
more exceptional.

4.2.6 Victory over Ariovistus, Caes. Gall. 1.48-54

From the very start of caput 48, Caesar and Ariovistus no longer seem to com-
municate by means of speech but by means of military actions and reactions
and the narrative of their cat-and-mousing does not contain many speeches.
Only 14% of the words of the episode are presented as representation of
speech or thought (N = 842).
The phase leading up to the battle contains a few commands and speeches.
It also presents the only thought of Ariovistus in the book (Caes. Gall. 1.48.2).
The indirect thought, depending on eo consilio, describes the plan or purpose
Ariovistus has when he positions his camp in such a way that Caesar is cut off
from supplies. This seems a rather passive way of warfare, almost a siege. Thus,
the thought or plan of Ariovistus contributes to suggesting that Ariovistus is
stalling and is reluctant to fight. However, further access to Ariovistus’ mind is
not given, neither to Caesar nor to the narratees. It is therefore, at this moment,
unclear why Ariovistus is reluctant to fight.
Finally, Ariovistus brings out part of his troops and after a brief battle, Cae-
sar can ask his captives why Ariovistus does not want to fight.

Cum ex captivis quaereret Caesar quam ob rem Ariovistus proelio non de-
certaret, hanc reperiebat causam, quod apud Germanos ea consuetudo es-
set ut matres familiae eorum sortibus et vaticinationibus declararent utrum
proelium committi ex usu esset necne; eas ita dicere: non esse fas Germanos
superare, si ante novam lunam proelio contendissent.
By questioning the prisoners why Ariovistus did not fight a decisive ac-
tion, Caesar found out that the reason was that it was a custom among
the Germans that their matrons should declare by lots and divinations
whether it was expedient or not to engage, and that the matrons declared
that heaven forbade the Germans to win a victory, if they fought an ac-
tion before the new moon.
In this speech, the use of the referential expression Germanos deserves some
attention. The captives talk about their own people, the Germans, and their
speech would have been understandable if it had started with quod apud se.
The effect of the use of Germanos is that the speech in this form resembles
a piece of information inserted by the narrator, which is of course the exact
function of this speech in the narrative. The speech is meant to explain to
the narratees, as well as to Caesar, why Ariovistus does not fight. An alterna-
tive presentation would have been a narratorial intervention providing this

164 chapter 4
information (e.g. Fuit consuetudo apud Germanos…). By means of this presen-

tation depending on reperiebat, the information about the importance of de-
ciding by drawing lots in German society has been narrativized and become an
integral part of the story.
The explanation itself displays important information about the German at-
titude towards war and, especially, the control that Ariovistus has or, rather, his
lack of control over its outcomes. Whereas Caesar carefully tends to plan his
actions and takes time to think of strategies, Ariovistus cannot decide for him-
self when to fight. He depends on something as uncontrollable as the drawing
of lots interpreted by women.90
Caesar decides to urge the Germans on and deploys his troops. The Ger-
mans do the same and this is narrated rather elaborately by the narrator, who
adds the detail that they set out their whole line with wagons so that flight was
impossible. Another detail is the sound made by the German women standing
on these wagons. They make sure that the German fighters know what is at
stake by their pleas not to make them slaves of the Romans:
Caes. Gall. 1.51.3

eo mulieres imposuerunt, quae ad proelium proficiscentes milites passis
manibus flentes implorabant, ne se in servitutem Romanis traderent.
Upon these they set their women, who with tears and outstretched hands
entreated the men, as they marched out to fight, not to deliver them into
Roman slavery.
This short representation of the ongoing shouts and pleas of the German
women is a brief impression of what it is like to inhabit the story world and is
one of the few instances of speech in this episode, marking the beginning of
the battle.
Neither a word is spoken nor a thought is expressed in the presentation
of this battle. Thoughts and speeches are not presented until the battle is
90 In this respect, it seems significant that Bellum Gallicum does not contain references to
prodigies or divination before battle, although Caesar must have had priests on his staff
(cf. Santangelo 2013: 113). Santangelo 2013: 112 puts that the lack of prodigies and re-
lated matters cannot be explained as a symptom of a negative take on divination but that
the reasons should be literary or political. I would interpret it in the light of the efficiency
and straightforwardness of the narrative in which divination and reports of pre-battle
sacrifices (with good or bad outcome) would mean a digression and disruption of the
ongoing and controllable chain of events of Caesar’s warfare.

over and Caesar finds Gaius Valerius Procillus, one of the men he sent to
Ariovistus (cf. Caes. Gall. 1.47.6). The narrator explicitly states that Caesar
was happy to see him return by means of an indirect thought and inserts
an indirect speech in which Gaius Valerius Procillus tells what happened
to him.

Gaius Valerius Procillus, cum a custodibus in fuga trinis catenis vinctus
traheretur, in ipsum Caesarem hostes equitatu insequentem incidit. quae
quidem res Caesari non minorem quam ipsa victoria voluptatem attu-
lit, quod hominem honestissimum provinciae Galliae, suum familiarem et
hospitem, ereptum ex manibus hostium sibi restitutum videbat neque eius
calamitate de tanta voluptate et gratulatione quicquam fortuna deminu-
erat. is se praesente de se ter sortibus consultum dicebat, utrum igni statim
necaretur an in aliud tempus reservaretur; sortium beneficio se esse incol-
umem. item Marcus Metius repertus et ad eum reductus est.
Gaius Valerius Procillus, bound with a threefold chain, was being

dragged by his keepers in the rout, when he chanced to meet Caesar
himself pursuing the enemy with the cavalry. And indeed it brought
Caesar no less pleasure than the victory itself, to see a most distin-
guished member of the Province of Gaul, his own close friend and
guest, snatched from the hands of the enemy and restored to himself;
and to feel that fortune had in no wise lessened, by the loss of his friend,
his own great pleasure and gratification. Procillus said that in his own
presence the lots had been thrice consulted to see whether he should
be burnt to death at once or saved for another time; that to the favour
of the lots he owed his safety. Marcus Mettius also was discovered and
brought back to Caesar.
Again, the drawing of lots play a role in the important decisions of the Ger-
mans. They were planning to kill Procillus and it was only because of the lots
that Procillus survived. This short analepsis shows how Ariovistus treated Pro-
cillus and that putting him in chains (Caes. Gall. 1.47.6) was only the begin-
ning of the maltreatment of this deputation.
After a short summary of Caesar’s achievements in this summer (duobus
maximis bellis confectis) the first book is ended with Caesar’s departure to Gal-
lia Cisalpina.

166 chapter 4
4.3 Close Reading of Speech and Thought Representations

in Bellum Gallicum 7
After six books of battles and expeditions in Gaul, Belgium and Britain, the sev-
enth book of Bellum Gallicum narrates what seems to be the most dangerous
development in the whole work, incited and lead by Caesar’s most dangerous
opponent. The Gallic tribes decide to unite themselves and to operate under
the leadership of Vercingetorix. The book narrates the rise of Vercingetorix, the
loss of the Haeduans as a Roman ally (a development narrated in four parts)
and several large battles, of which the battles of Bourges, Gergovia and Alesia
stand out. The battle at Gergovia is lost but is preceded and followed in the
narrative by large victories for the Romans.
The representations of speech and thought in this book are not distributed
evenly over the episodes. The episodes concerned with battles contain less
speeches and thoughts, although Gergovia is an exception. In the Gergovia
episode, speeches and thoughts of especially Caesar seem to function as a tex-
tual strategy to diminish the loss at Gergovia and its possible effect on Caesar’s
image. Representations of speeches and thought play an important part in the
characterization of Vercingetorix and the explanation of his rise as a leader of
the united Gauls. Speech and thought representation also plays an important
role in explaining the defectuo of the Haeduans.
Throughout the book, speeches and thoughts contribute to a positive char-
acterization of Caesar, focusing, on many occasions, on his strategic and even
prescient insights in war. Thus, the narrative of book 7 seems to convey the
idea that war is something you can plan and execute efficiently.
4.3.1 Collective Gallic Rebellion, Caes. Gall. 7.1-3

Quieta Gallia are the first two words of book seven and present the reason why
Caesar thinks it is safe to go to Italy, where things are less peaceful after Clodius’
murder. The Gauls hear of these events and think that the unrest in Rome and
Italy will be of such a nature that Caesar will not return to Gaul soon.
Speech and thought representations make up 45% of the words in this brief
episode on the first stage of a collective Gallic rebellion.91 The speeches and
thoughts are mostly expectations and guesses of Gallic leaders, presented as a
set of collective sentiments.
91 The total amount of words in this episode is 339, of which 154 are indirect speech or
thought or part of a mentioned speech.

Caes. Gall. 7.1.2-8

Addunt ipsi et adfingunt rumoribus Galli, quod res poscere videbatur,
retineri urbano motu Caesarem neque in tantis dissensionibus ad exercitum
venire posse. Hac impulsi occasione, qui iam ante se populi Romani impe-
rio subiectos dolerent liberius atque audacius de bello consilia inire in-
cipiunt. Indictis inter se principes Galliae conciliis silvestribus ac remotis
locis queruntur de Acconis morte; posse hunc casum ad ipsos recidere
demonstrant: miserantur communem Galliae fortunam: omnibus pollic-
itationibus ac praemiis deposcunt qui belli initium faciant et sui capitis
periculo Galliam in libertatem vindicent. In primis rationem esse haben-
dam dicunt, priusquam eorum clandestina consilia efferantur, ut Caesar ab
exercitu intercludatur. Id esse facile, quod neque legiones audeant absente
imperatore ex hibernis egredi, neque imperator sine praesidio ad legiones
pervenire possit. Postremo in acie praestare interfici quam non veterem belli
gloriam libertatemque quam a maioribus acceperint recuperare.
The Gauls added to the reports a circumstance of their own invention,

which the occasion seemed to require, that Caesar was detained by the
commotion at Rome and, in view of discords so serious, could not come to
the army. Such an opportunity served as a stimulus to those who even be-
fore were chafing at their subjection to the sovereignty of Rome, and they
began with greater freedom and audacity to make plans for a campaign.
The chiefs of Gaul summoned conventions by mutual arrangement in re-
mote forest spots and complained of the death of Acco. They pointed out
that his fate might fall next upon themselves; they expressed pity for the
common lot of Gaul; by all manner of promises and rewards they called
for men to start the campaign and at the risk of their own life to champion
the liberty of Gaul. They said that, first and foremost, they must devise
means, before ever their secret designs got abroad, to shut Caesar off from
the army; that it was an easy task, because the legions would not dare to
march out of cantonments in the absence of the commander-in-chief, nor
could the latter without a strong escort reach the legions; that, finally, it
was better to be slain in battle than to fail of recovering their old renown
in war and the liberty which they had received from their forefathers.
These collective sentiments present an insight into the emotions of the Gauls,
showing the impact of events on them (what it’s like). Furthermore, they ex-
press the assumptions on the basis of which the Gallic leaders decide what
action to take next. The narrator presents these assumptions explicitly as
postulations and guesses, for instance by introducing the first of their ideas

168 chapter 4
by means of adfingunt rumoribus and qualifying its complement as quod res

poscere videbatur. The effect of this is that the words in tantis dissensionibus
will be interpreted as a formulation for which the speakers are (solely) respon-
sible. It is suggested that this qualification of the situation in Rome is the ex-
aggerated Gallic take on things and the narrator refrains from evaluating the
truth value of their assumptions.
Next, several Gallic leaders start expressing their discontent and fears
at several meetings. The actions they decide to take are expressed in one
speech, consisting of two parts. The parts represent the first stage and the last
stage of their planned actions. The indications in primis and postremo show
that the speakers organized their speech in a clear way. At the same time,
however, in primis and postremo suggest that much more was said, as the
usual middle part (e.g. deinde) is left out.92 Thus, the narrator shows that he
summarizes the speech and makes himself relatively apparent in this speech
representation. The adjective clandestina gives the whole plan the air of a con-
spiracy.
The idea of a conspiracy should, in my opinion, be an important factor in
our interpretation of these speeches. The secretive air of the collective strategy
against Caesar gives the narratee the idea that this is a conspiracy to overcome
a legitimate leader rather than a discussion on the strategy to be taken in open
warfare. Moreover, the speeches are presented as collective sentiments, sug-
gesting that the Gallic leaders act as a group. The form of the speech contrib-
utes to the idea that the Gauls are of one opinion and form a block against
Caesar and Rome thus adding to the threatening character of the situation.
The threat immediately becomes real and urgent because the Carnutes
promise to take action. In return they demand an oath of honour to make sure
that they will not be abandoned by the other Gallic tribes. The speech in which
the Carnutes make these promises and demands is presented in parts (a parti-
tioned speech, Caes. Gall. 7.2), of which I quote the last part.
Caes. Gall. 7.2.2

ut iureiurando ac fide sanciatur, petunt, collatis militaribus signis, quo
more eorum gravissima caerimonia continetur, ne facto initio belli
ab reliquis deserantur.
they asked for the sanction of an oath of honour before the assembled
war-standards—the formality which represents their most solemn
92 Kraner et al. 1961: ad loc..

ritual—to make sure that after beginning the campaign they should not
be abandoned by the rest.
After collatis militaribus signis, the narrator inserts a relative clause contain-
ing the indicative continetur to provide information to his narratees about this
custom of assembled war-standards. Thus, he stresses the seriousness (graviss-
ima) of this custom, emphasising the unison that the Gauls will establish by
taking their oath with these rituals.93
The Carnutes do as they promised and take up a fight with Roman citizens,
plundering their goods. The information is spread fairly fast among all states
of Gaul. The narrator explains how the Gauls did this in a seemingly neutral
narratorial piece of information.
Caes. Gall. 7.3.3

Nam ubicumque maior atque illustrior incidit res, clamore per agros
regionesque significant; hunc alii deinceps excipiunt et proximis tradunt,
ut tum accidit. Nam quae Cenabi oriente sole gesta essent, ante primam
confectam vigiliam in finibus Arvernorum audita sunt, quod spatium est
milium passuum circiter centum LX.
As a matter of fact, whenever any event of greater note or importance

occurs, the Gauls shout it abroad through fields and districts and then
others take it up in turn and pass it on to their next neighbours; as hap-
pened on this occasion. For the deeds done at Cenabum at sunrise were
heard of before the end of the first watch in the borders of the Arverni, a
distance of about one hundred and sixty miles.
This piece of information shows that the Gauls may be separate tribes but that
they nevertheless have the means to communicate efficiently. The Gauls are
organized to such an extent that a message can travel 160 miles in less than a
day.
The narrator has chosen to insert this information here in his narrative, at a
point in time that the Gauls stand together against Caesar. We may conclude
that in this first part of book 7, the representations of speech and thought em-
phasize the unison of the Gauls that will cause Caesar and the Romans serious
trouble in the rest of the book.
93 See my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.10.1 for other relative clauses containing indicative
verb forms.

170 chapter 4
4.3.2 Rise of Vercingetorix, Caes. Gall. 7.4-21

In the fourth caput of book seven, the narrator focuses on the main antago-
nist of Caesar in this book, Vercingetorix. His speeches, as we will see in the
discussions below, portray him as a different kind of opponent than Ariovis-
tus was in the first book. Ariovistus is presented in direct, verbal battles with
Caesar, that were won by Caesar and made him stand out as the better, more
authoritative and more thoughtful leader. In contrast to this, Vercingetorix
never communicates with Caesar. His speeches are directed to his own troops
and subordinates and Vercingetorix shows himself almost as competent and
authoritative as Caesar in his speeches.94 Representations of speeches and
thoughts mostly take the form of indirect speeches in this episode but the ep-
isode also contains two direct speeches, both uttered by Vercingetorix (at the
same occasion). In sum, speech and thought representation makes up 41% of
the episode.95
It is significant that, after Caesar, Vercingetorix is, by far, the character in
my corpus that gives most commands.96 One of his first speeches is, in fact,
a set of commands, displaying his qualities as a leader as soon as he is given
just the least bit of power. Vercingetorix enters the narrative as the son of the
deceased Celtillus, who had had most power in all of Gaul (Caes. Gall. 7.4.1).
Vercingetorix has plans to liberate Gaul and when he has received the support
of several tribes, he knows exactly what to do next:
Caes. Gall. 7.4.7-8

Qua oblata potestate omnibus his civitatibus obsides imperat, certum nu-
merum militum ad se celeriter adduci iubet, armorum quantum quaeque
civitas domi quodque ante tempus efficiat constituit; in primis equitatui
studet. Summae diligentiae summam imperi severitatem addit;
In virtue of the power thus conferred he made requisition of hostages on

all these states, and ordered a certain number of soldiers to be brought
to him speedily; he determined what amount of arms, and by what date,
each state should manufacture at home, and he paid especial attention
to the cavalry. To the utmost care he added the utmost strictness of com-
mand, compelling waverers by severity of punishment.
94 Kraus 2009.
95 The total amount of words in this episode is 2379, of which 979 are direct, indirect or
mentioned speech or indirect or mentioned thought. There is one instance that might be
an example of free indirect thought (patuerant in Caes. Gall.7.8.3).
96 In sum, Vercingetorix speaks at 30 occasions and 16 of these speeches are commands.

The commands in this excerpt have specific, meaningful forms. The first
(imperat) is a mentioned speech. The second and third set of commands (iubet
and constituit) are a particular type of indirect speech in which details about
numbers, time and place are left out and indicated by means of summarizing
words such as interrogatory pronouns or the reference certum numerum.97 The
only details that are made explicit here is that the troops need to go to Ver
cingetorix (ad se) and that the commands need to be executed speedily (celeriter).
One might conclude from this specific, summarized form that the narrator
simply did not know the other details of the commands and therefore presents
them only vaguely. However, I would argue for another interpretation of the
occurrence of summarizing words in this indirect speech. Whether the narra-
tor knew the details or not, this form of presentation takes away the attention
from the content of the command. Thus, it gives all the more emphasis to Ver
cingetorix’ decisiveness and other abilities to be a leader.98 Vercingetorix knows
what elements a good command should contain: number, time and place.99 It
is not what Vercingetorix precisely orders that matters here, what matters is
the fact that he is in a position to order, that he knows how to fulfil this position
and that he, therefore, is a serious threat. The narrator explicitly concludes that
Vercingetorix added strictness of command to his summa diligentia. The narra-
tor then turns to a swift narration of Vercingetorix’ rise to power.
Caesar receives word of these developments and, since he has also been
informed that things in Rome have been brought to a more satisfactory state,
he sets out for Transalpine Gaul. There, he is in doubt about the action he can
take and his thoughts are, characteristically, presented in a partitioned indirect
form (Caes. Gall. 7.6.3-4).100 The fact that Lucterius, a Carducan, is marching
towards Narbonne helps Caesar decide and he goes to Narbonne to defend
it against Lucterius. Caesar then reaches the territory of the Arverni, clearing
away six feet of snow along the way. The narrator emphasizes this feat first in
his own text (durrissimo tempore anni, altissima nive, summo militum sudore)
and then presents it again from the perspective of the Arverni:
97 The referential expressions are presented in an imprecise way, indicating that they are
geared to the deictic centre of the narrator. The Caesar-corpus contains six other com-
mands in which the narrator leaves such details out. Apart from the two in Caes. Gall.
7.4.7, these occur in Caes. Gall. 7.11 (imperat - Caesar), 7.16 (imperabat - Vercingetorix),
7.31 (imperat - Vercingetorix) and 7.45 (iubet - Caesar).
98 The use of the adverb celeriter in the command in Caes. Gall. 7.4 and its repetition in Caes.
Gall. 7.5 (celeriter coactu exercitu) even suggests that Vercingetorix, like Caesar, had the
important quality of celeritas.
100 See, for instance, Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-34.1 and 7.33.1-2.

172 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 7.8.2-3

Etsi mons Cevenna, qui Arvernos ab Helviis discludit, durissimo tem-
pore anni altissima nive iter impediebat, tamen discussa nive sex in alti-
tudinem pedum atque ita viis patefactis summo militum sudore ad fines
Arvernorum pervenit. Quibus oppressis inopinantibus, quod se Cevenna
ut muro munitos existimabant, ac ne singulari quidem umquam homini
eo tempore anni semitae patuerant, equitibus imperat, ut quam latissime
possint vagentur et quam maximum hostibus terrorem inferant.
Now the range of the Cevennes, which parts the Arverni from the Helvii,
in this the severest season of the year was likely to hinder the march
with great depth of snow; however, he cleared away snow six feet deep
and, having thus opened up the roads by a supreme effort of the troops,
reached the borders of the Arverni. They were caught off their guard, for
they thought themselves fortified by the Cevennes as by a wall, and not
even a solitary traveller had ever found the paths open at that season
of the year; and Caesar commanded the cavalry to extend on as broad a
front and strike as much terror into the enemy as possible.
Caesar surprised the Arverni with his arrival. The reason for the unsuspect-
ing attitude of the Arverni is presented in an indirect thought from which be-
comes clear that they thought the Cevennes would protect them, like a wall.
The perspective of the Arverni suggests that Caesar overcame the walls of a
well-fortified city with his previous action. It briefly suggests the surprise, hor-
ror and awe that the Arverni must have experienced when Caesar suddenly
arrived at their doorstep.101
Caesar’s feat is even more emphasized in the next clause (ne ... patuerant).
This clause, presented in the pluperfect indicative (patuerant), could be inter-
preted as a free indirect thought because the use of ne singulari quidem homini
and umquam reflects the surprise and panic of the Arverni.102 At the same time,
the use of the indicative shows that the narrator lends his own authority to the
truth value of this sentence. Overall, the excerpt makes clear, both from the
perspective of the narrator and of the Arverni, that Caesar was unstoppable.
The Arverni can only turn to Vercingetorix for help.
101 The moment is similar to the moment in which Caesar swiftly built a bridge while it had
taken the Helvetians twenty days to cross the river, resulting in similar feelings of horror
and awe in the Helvetians (Caes. Gall. 1.13.2).
102 See my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.19.2 for other examples of possible free indirect thought.

Caes. Gall. 7.8.4

Celeriter haec fama ac nuntiis ad Vercingetorigem perferuntur. Quem
perterriti omnes Arverni circumsistunt atque obsecrant, ut suis fortunis
consulat, neu se ab hostibus diripi patiatur, praesertim cum videat omne ad
se bellum translatum. Quorum ille precibus permotus castra ex Biturigi-
bus movet in Arvernos versus.
Rumour and reports hereof were speedily brought to Vercingetorix, and

all the Arverni gathered about him panic-stricken, beseeching him to
have regard to their fortunes and not suffer them to be pillaged by the
enemy, especially now that, as he saw, the whole war had been turned
against them. He was prevailed upon by their prayers to move his camp
from the country of the Bituriges towards that of the Arverni.
The behaviour of the deputies and the presentation of their message convey the
panic of the Arverni. The deputies almost force themselves upon Vercingetorix,
begging for help. Their speech is given a panic-stricken and urgent tone by means
of the use of their deictic centre for several elements, viz. hostibus, praesertim and
omne bellum. The word hostibus refers to the Romans and is remarkable since it
is, to my knowledge, the first time that this reference is used to describe the Ro-
mans in Bellum Gallicum.103 Hostibus is a strong example of the focalization of the
Arverni and emphasizes their awestruck horror and fear of the Roman enemy.
Their awe and horror portrays the Romans and Caesar as their general as
formidable enemies, thus praising them indirectly. A positive portrayal of Cae-
sar is achieved also in another, even more subtle way in this speech. Caesar
immediately knows all this, it is not just the omniscient narrator, looking back
at the events of his story, that knows of this persuasive speech of the Arverni
and how it convinces Vercingetorix to move to the Avernian territory rather
than staying in that of the Bituriges. Caesar’s knowledge or foresight becomes
clear from a short indirect thought in the next line.104
103 The word hostes is used at 263 instances in Bellum Gallicum. I have found only two in-
stances before the instance in this speech of the Arverni that do not refer to enemies of
the Romans. These two instances are different from the use of hostibus by the Arverni in
that they do not refer to the Romans but to more general enemies (incursionis hostium
vitandae causa in Caes. Gall. 5.21.3) and to Cingetorix, the personal enemy of Induti-
omarus (Cingetorigem ... hostem iudicat, Caes. Gall. 5.56.3). After the use of hostibus in
the speech of the Arverni, the word hostes is used more often to refer to the Romans.
Instances are found at Caes. Gall. 7.14.4, 7.26.3, 7.29.7, 7.47.4, 7.66.6, 7.71.3.
104 Busch 2005: 150.

174 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 7.9.1

At Caesar biduum in his locis moratus, quod haec de Vercingetorige usu
ventura opinione praeceperat, per causam supplementi equitatusque
cogendi ab exercitu discedit, Brutum adulescentem his copiis praeficit.
Caesar, however, having anticipated that this would be the natural course of
things for Vercingetorix, halted for two days in this locality; then he left the
army on the pretext of assembling the supplementary levy and the cavalry.
Once more, we see Caesar as an anticipating general, reacting to actions of his

enemies that are not (yet) reported to him but that he simply foresees.
Caesar and Vercingetorix will from this moment be engaged in a cat-and-
mouse game that will continue until they both set up their camps near Bourges
(Caes. Gall.7.16ff). Before this, however, Caesar tries to assemble his troops
at one place in Gaul, while Vercingetorix sets up a siege at Gorgobina, a city
of Boii under the control of Roman allies, the Haeduans. This makes Caesar
decide to set off for the territory of the Boii, a decision that is explained and
prepared in a partitioned thought (Caes. Gall. 7.10.1-2).105
In the territory of the Boii, Caesar conquers three cities at great speed, dis-
tressing more and more Gallic tribes and encountering difficulties only at the
last of these three cities. He first arrives at Vellaunodunum, a city of the Boii
that surrenders on the third day of the siege:
Caes. Gall. 7.11.2

tertio die missis ex oppido legatis de deditione arma conferri, iumenta
produci, sescentos obsides dari iubet. Ea qui conficeret, a. Trebonium
legatum relinquit.
On the third day deputies were sent out of the town to treat for surrender,
and Caesar ordered arms to be collected, pack-animals furnished, and six
hundred hostages given.
Caesar apparently is in a hurry because after his command to collect their

arms, furnish pack-animals and give hostages, he sets off. It seems that he is
completely confident that his commands will be carried out and leaves this to
Gaius Trebonius. As I have stated at my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.7.2, Caesar’s
105 For other partitioned thoughts in Bellum Gallicum see my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-
34.1. For partitioned speeches in Bellum Gallicum, see my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.43.4-9.

commands are always executed and he is, therefore, right to be confident. Nev-
ertheless, in the next caput (Caes. Gall. 7.12.3) Caesar gives a command that is
not carried out without further ado. In that caput, this command at Vellauno-
dunum turns out to be a careful preparation by the narrator.
After the conquering of this first city, Caesar goes on to Cenabum (Orleans).
The narrator presents the situation first from the perspective of the Carnutes.
They are preparing to send a garrison to Cenabum, thinking that it will take
Caesar some time to arrange things at Vellaunodunum.

qui tum primum adlato nuntio de oppugnatione Vellaunoduni, cum lon-
gius eam rem ductum iri existimarent, praesidium Cenabi tuendi causa,
quod eo mitterent, comparabant. huc biduo pervenit.
The news of the siege of Vellaunodunum had been brought to them, and
thinking that the business would be long drawn out, they were at this
moment beginning to raise a garrison to be sent to Cenabum for the pro-
tection thereof. Caesar reached it in two days.
In the next sentence, the narrator sets them straight, as well as narratees who
might have agreed with their reasoning. The narrator does this in an objective
tone of voice: huc biduo pervenit. Again, as was the case with the Arverni, a
Gallic tribe is taken by surprise.
Caesar reaches the territory of the Bituriges and moves on to a third city,
Noviodonum, while Vercingetorix, by now aware of Caesar’s success, is on his
way to meet him. At Noviodonum, events seem to take their now expected
course: deputies come out of the city and Caesar gives a familiar command.
Caes. Gall. 7.12.3

Quo ex oppido cum legati ad eum venissent oratum ut sibi ignos-
ceret suaeque vitae consuleret, ut celeritate reliquas res conficeret, qua
pleraque erat consecutus, arma conferri, equos produci, obsides dari iubet.
And as deputies came out to him from the place to entreat pardon for their
faults and pity for their lives, he ordered arms to be collected, horses to be
furnished, hostages to be given, with intent to complete the remainder of
the business as speedily as he had accomplished the greater part thereof.
The narrator first makes it explicit that Caesar follows his usual, swift and suc-
cessful method of commanding the city to collect their weapons, bring out

176 chapter 4
their horses and to give hostages (qua ... consecutus). The command at Noviodo-
num echoes the command at Vellaunodunum (Caes. Gall. 7.11.2) and, thus,
strengthens the remark of the narrator. His narratees remember from one caput
ago that this was indeed Caesar’s usual, successful and swift modus operandi.
However, the execution of these commands is interrupted by the arrival of
Vercingetorix’ horsemen, giving hope to the inhabitants of Noviodonum. An
asyndetical tricolon (arma to complere), in form similar to Caesar’s command,
then tells of actions that are quite the opposite of what Caesar wanted to happen.
Caes. Gall. 7.12.5

Quem simul atque oppidani conspexerunt atque in spem auxili ven-
erunt, clamore sublato arma capere, portas claudere, murum complere
coeperunt.
The moment the townsfolk caught sight of them and conceived a hope
of assistance, they raised a shout and began to take up their arms, to shut
the gates, and to man the wall.
Shortly afterwards, however, the hope of the inhabitants of Noviodunum turns

out to be in vain when Caesar takes the city after all and proceeds to Bourges
(Caes. Gall.7.13.3).
Nevertheless, the conquering of Noviodunum was not as smooth and swift as
that of Vellaunodunum and Cenabum. In this respect, I would like to give mean-
ing to the almost verbal repetition of the command in Caes. Gall. 7.12.3 and ar-
gue that the narrator has deliberately prepared his narratee for the somewhat
troublesome conquering of Noviodunum by means of his presentation of the
swift conquering of Vellaunodunum. It seems telling that the narrator treats a
command that is not completely executed in such a cautious way. The one time
that a command of Caear is not executed, the narrator makes sure that Caesar’s
authority remains intact by implicitly referring to a more successful occasion.
In caput 14, Caesar’s success in the conquering of three cities in a row is pre-
sented again but now from the perspective of Vercingetorix (tot continuis in-
commodis Vellaunoduni, Canabi, Novioduni acceptis).106 The caput contains the
first long speech by Vercingetorix. In this indirectly yet lively presented speech
with many elements deriving from the speaker’s deictic centre (e.g. hostes in
Caes. Gall. 7.14.4), Vercingetorix puts his finger exactly on Caesar’s problems
106 Transl.: ‘having experienced three continuous reverses—at Vellaunodunum, Cenabum,

and Noviodunum’.

regarding food supplies and proposes to make it even more difficult for him by
burning down all hamlets, homesteads and towns with no defense.
In sum, five relatively long speeches by Vercingetorix are presented in book 7
and in all of them he demonstrates that he is an intelligent strategist and a con-
vincing speaker, able to manage crowds like a true demagogue.107 The structure
of his longer speeches is very clear, for instance due to the use of discourse mark-
ers.108 Also the speech in Caes. Gall. 7.14 is well structured and shows rhetorical
wit. Vercingetorix’ plans are, unsurprisingly, approved by general consent and
the cities of the Bituriges are set on fire. The inhabitants of Avaricum (Bourges),
however, win their plea to save their city, despite Vercingetorix’ initial plan to
burn every city. Vercingetorix sets up his camp sixteen miles from Avaricum and
keeps himself informed about the situation in the Roman camp near this town.
In the Roman camp, preparations are made for battle but Vercingetorix’ in-
sight about the lack of Roman corn supplies is proven right and the troops
in the Roman camp suffer. The situation is such that Caesar even offers that
his men stop the siege. The narrator presents the reaction of the troops in a
relatively long indirect speech (Caes. Gall. 7.17.4). The soldiers express their
willingness to endure the sufferings and their eagerness to fight. They repeat
their speech to their centurions, asking them to give the message to Caesar.
The episode both portrays Caesar as a thoughtful leader of his troops, as well
as complimenting the soldiers indirectly for their fighting spirit.
The narrative is given a forward thrust by means of intelligence received by
Caesar from prisoners. Vercingetorix moved his camp closer to Avaricum and
himself went away to plan an ambush for Caesar’s troops. Caesar approaches
the Gallic camp and his troops come face to face with the Gauls on a slope sur-
rounded by marshes. At first sight, the situation is equal but the close onlooker
sees that the Gauls are in fact positioned higher up.109 The Roman troops are
indignant and demand the signal for action. Caesar, however, sees the situation
for what it is and explains (edocet Caes. Gall. 7.19.4) that they would lose many
men if they were to fight now. Therefore, he retreats and sets everything in order
for the siege.
107 These long speeches occur at Caes. Gall. 7.14.2, 7.20.3, 7.29.1, 7.64.2 and 7.66.3.
108 In Vercingetorix’ speech in Caes. Gall. 7.29 (introduced by consolatus cohortatusque) we
find, for instance, the discourse markers non ... sed, tamen, nam, ne...quidem, interea.
109 Caes. Gall. 7.19.3 haesitantes premerent ex loco superiore, ut, qui propinquitatem loci videret,
paratos prope aequo Marte ad dimicandum existimaret, qui iniquitatem condicionis per-
spiceret, inani simulatione sese ostentare cognosceret. (Transl.: to overwhelm them from the
higher ground as they stuck fast. So anyone who remarked how near they were thought them
prepared to fight to a finish in almost equal battle; but anyone who observed the inequality
of the conditions recognized that they were displaying themselves in empty bravado.)

178 chapter 4
The Gauls, in the meantime, are angry with Vercingetorix for abandoning
them, as becomes clear in caput 20, in which they accuse him of treachery. In
sum, they utter five accusations (numbered in the excerpt):
Caes. Gall. 7.20.1

Vercingetorix, cum ad suos redisset, proditionis insimulatus, quod castra
propius Romanos movisset (1), quod cum omni equitatu discessisset (2),
quod sine imperio tantas copias reliquisset (3), quod eius discessu Romani
tanta opportunitate et celeritate venissent (4): non haec omnia fortuito aut
sine consilio accidere potuisse; regnum illum Galliae malle Caesaris con-
cessu quam ipsorum habere beneficio (5)
When Vercingetorix returned to his followers, he was accused of treach-

ery because he had moved the camp nearer to the Romans, because he
had gone off with all the horse and had left so large a force without a com-
mander, and because on his departure the Romans had come with such
speed upon their opportunity. All these circumstances, they said, could not
have happened by chance or without design; he preferred to possess the
kingship of Gaul by the leave of Caesar rather than by favour of themselves.
The speech in which Vercingetorix defends himself against these accusation

is his most clearly structured speech. It has often been observed that Ver
cingetorix counters each of the accusations in the order in which they were
uttered by the Gauls. Another feature of the speech that has often been ob-
served is the alternation in the tenses of the subjunctives.110 I see a connection
110 Cf. Oppermann 1931; Andrewes 1937; Kraner et al. 1961; Rasmussen 1963. It has to be
said, however, that there is a text problem with one verb form in this speech (posset/pos-
sit). Apart from that, several editions and commentators seem to have adapted two tense
forms (sint profecti and esset) to fit their interpretation. Opperman 1931 and Rasmussen
1963 argue that the tense forms of the subjunctives in this speech show a gradual transi-
tion from indirect speech to the direct speech passage at the end of the speech because
the subjunctives are presented in past tenses in the first half of the speech and in present
tenses in the second half. This interpretation would make sense, if the subjunctives in-
deed were first presented in past tenses and later in present tenses. This is not the case,
however. The manuscripts unanimously read sint profecti in the first half of the speech
and esset in the second which means that the narrator goes back and forth between past
and present subjunctives throughout the speech. Opperman 1931 and Rasmussen 1963
change these tense forms without comment and some editions seem to follow their ex-
ample (Klotz 1952 and Hering 1987 print essent profecti, possit and sit). Kraner et al. 1961
print sint profecti in accordance to the manuscript but do print possit and sit. The verb

between these two features: the alternation in tense forms is one of the ways in
which the structure of this speech is made apparent. This becomes clear when
we analyse the speech in parts.
Vercingtorix starts his speech with an answer to the accusation that he
moved the camp closer to the Romans (1). He does this in two steps: he moved
it because his men asked him to do so and he moved it closer to the Romans
because of the suitability of that location.
Caes. Gall. 7.20.3

Vercingetorix, … tali modo accusatus ad haec respondit:
Quod castra movisset, factum inopia pabuli etiam ipsis hortantibus; quod
propius Romanos accessisset, persuasum loci opportunitate, qui se ipsum
munitione defenderet:
Accused in such sort, he replied to the charges [...] that, as for having
gone nearer the Romans, he had been influenced by the advantage of a
position which could protect itself by its own defenses;
In this first part of the speech past subjunctives are used. The words castra
movisset and propius Romanos occur both in the accusation and in this speech.
They are repeated at the start of the sentences so that it is immediately clear
which accusation is answered.
The next part of the speech starts with equitum vero, a clear sign that we
move to the next accusation (2) and that this accusation concerns the cavalry.
Caes. Gall. 7.20.4

equitum vero operam neque in loco palustri desiderari debuisse et illic fuisse
utilem, quo sint profecti.
that, further, the service of the horse should not have been needed on
marshy ground, and it had been useful in the place to which they had
marched;
form posset/ possit is indeed problematic because one manuscript family (α) has posset
and the other has possit (β). Kraner’s argument for printing possit is that the narrator will
not return to past subjunctives after using present subjunctives but this argument does
not hold. In several other speeches the narrator switches from past subjunctives to pres-
ent subjunctives and back again (e.g. Caesar’s long reprimand in Caes. Gall. 1.40). In the
analysis that I present above, we can explain the return to past subjunctives and do not
have to change esset into sit on the basis of possit in one manuscript family.

180 chapter 4
The particle vero derives from the deictic centre of Vercingetorix. On the level
of Vercingetorix and his addressees, it functions to give emphasis to this par-
ticular part of the speech and on the level of the narrator, it gives this part of
the speech a hint of authenticity as the words of the speaking character seem
to shimmer through. The same effect is achieved by the use of the perfect tense
form sint profecti, which is another element deriving from Vercingetorix’ deic-
tic centre. This means that the deictic centre of the tense form(s) has changed
in comparison to the first part of the speech.
It changes again in the next passage in which the use of imperfect subjunc-
tives seems to function to separate this new part of the speech from the pre-
vious part.
Caes. Gall. 7.20.5

Summam imperi se consulto nulli discedentem tradidisse, ne is multitudinis
studio ad dimicandum impelleretur; cui rei propter animi mollitiem studere
omnes videret, quod diutius laborem ferre non possent.
that it was of purpose that he had committed the chief command to no one
at his departure, for fear that his deputy might be driven by the zeal of the
host to an engagement—an object for which he saw that all were zealous
through weakness of spirit, because they could not longer endure hardship.
The first words, summam imperi, indicate that Vercingetorix will now explain
why he did not leave anyone in command (accusation 3). It is almost immedi-
ately followed by the word consulto, emphasising that it was not a flaw in Verc-
ingetorix’ strategy but a conscious choice. This is followed by a rather harsh re-
buke: the Gallic leader Vercingetorix tells his own men that they have mollitiem
animi and are not able to endure hardship. This short portrayal of the Gauls
gets all the more authority in the eyes of the narratee because it is expressed
by the Gallic leader himself.
The next point in the defense concerns the arrival of the Romans (accu-
sation 4). Vercingetorix casts doubt whether the Romans came by chance or
because of betrayal and emphasizes that, in either case, the Gauls should be
thankful:
Caes. Gall. 7.20.6

Romani si casu intervenerint, fortunae, si alicuius indicio vocati, huic
habendam gratiam, quod et paucitatem eorum ex loco superiore cogno-
scere et virtutem despicere potuerint, qui dimicare non ausi turpiter se in
castra receperint.

that, if the appearance of the Romans on the scene had been due to
chance, the Gauls had fortune to thank; if they had been summoned
thither by some informer, the Gauls had that man to thank for the satis-
faction of having been able to learn from their higher station the scanti-
ness of their numbers, and to despise a courage which had not ventured
to fight but had retired disgracefully to camp.
Vercingetorix here decreases the importance of how the Romans came, by fo-
cusing on the advantage of their arrival. Again, we find a change in the deictic
centre of the tense forms. The perfect tenses are geared to the deictic centre
of Vercingetorix. Also the word turpiter derives from Vercingetorix and makes
this a very lively excerpt of indirect speech. The speech of Vercingetorix is here
working towards its climax.
Then, for one last time, past tenses are used, in Vercingetorix’ statement on
the alleged pact with Caesar (5):
Caes. Gall. 7.20.7

Imperium se ab Caesare per proditionem nullum desiderare, quod habere
victoria posset, quae iam esset sibi atque omnibus Gallis explorata:
that he had no need to obtain from Caesar by treachery a title of com-

mand which he could enjoy by a victory already assured to himself and
all the Gauls.
The past tenses in this statement seem to suggest that Vercingetorix here slows
down again, in preparation for his final argument. In contrast, the present
tenses in the final statement are more forceful and this effect is enhanced by
the use of quin etiam.
Caes. Gall. 7.20.7

quin etiam ipsis remittere, si sibi magis honorem tribuere, quam ab se sa-
lutem accipere videantur.
that he, nay more, would gave the title back to them if they thought that
they were bestowing honour on him rather than deriving security from
him.
The alternation of tense forms coincides with the separate parts of the speech
and, thus, seems to have a structuring function. It illustrates that Vercingetorix
knows how to structure a speech and characterizes him as a powerful rhetorician.

182 chapter 4
At the same time, the present tense subjunctive and quin etiam give most
emphasis to this last sentence when compared to the preceding sentences.
However, the speech becomes even more forceful in the next part, in which the
narrator completely gives way to Vercingetorix and switches to direct speech.
Caes. Gall. 7.20.8-12

“Haec ut intellegatis,” inquit, “a me sincere pronuntiari, audite Romanos mi-
lites.” Producit servos, quos in pabulatione paucis ante diebus exceperat
et fame vinculisque excruciaverat. Hi iam ante edocti quae interrogati
pronuntiarent, milites se esse legionarios dicunt; fame et inopia adductos
clam ex castris exisse, si quid frumenti aut pecoris in agris reperire possent:
simili omnem exercitum inopia premi, nec iam vires sufficere cuiusquam
nec ferre operis laborem posse: itaque statuisse imperatorem, si nihil in op-
pugnatione oppidi profecissent, triduo exercitum deducere. “Haec,” inquit,
“a me,” Vercingetorix, “beneficia habetis, quem proditionis insimulatis;
cuius opera sine vestro sanguine tantum exercitum victorem fame con-
sumptum videtis; quem turpiter se ex fuga recipientem ne qua civitas suis
finibus recipiat a me provisum est.”
“That you may perceive,” he continued, “the sincerity of this statement

on my part, listen to Roman soldiers.” He brought forward slaves whom
he had caught foraging a few days before and had tortured with hunger
and chains. These had been previously instructed what to state when
questioned, and said that they were soldiers of the line; they had been
induced by hunger and want to go secretly out of the camp, to see if they
could find any corn or cattle in the fields; the whole army was suffering
from similar want, no man had any strength left, none could endure the
strain of work, and therefore the commander-in-chief had decided, if
they made no progress in the siege of the town, in three days to withdraw
the army. “These,” said Vercingetorix, “are the benefits you have from me,
whom you accuse of treachery, by whose effort, without shedding of your
own blood, you behold this great victorious army wasted with hunger;
while it is I who have seen to it that, when it takes shelter in disgraceful
flight, no state shall admit it within its borders.”
Two direct speeches are alternated with an indirect speech uttered by slaves
impersonating Romans. Their speech functions as the ‘proof’ of Vercingetorix
defense.
The form of the last parts of Vercingetorix’ speech is exceptional, as Bellum
Gallicum does not contain many direct speeches. The choice for this form should

therefore be part of our interpretation of this speech. First of all, the form of this
speech presents Vercingetorix with all his rhetorical talents in full as he seems
to finish his speech in a classic peroratio.111 Rasmussen also discusses this char-
acterizing function of the speech, observing that the narrator uses the form to
portray him as a strong opponent thus adding to the dignitas of Caesar as well.112
In addition to this general function of the direct form, the direct speeches
contain several elements that would not have had as much force if they had
been presented in an indirect form. The personal pronoun me, for instance,
emphasizes the role Vercingoterix wants to ascribe to himself, especially be-
cause it is used in both parts of the direct speech.113 The adverb sincere may ex-
press Vercingetorix’ sincerity on the level of the represented speech situation
but on the level of the narrator and his narratees it has quite the opposite effect
as it emphasizes that Vercingetorix is, in fact, lying.114 The contrast between the
character’s speech and the narrator text is exploited even further when Verc-
ingetorix introduces Romanos milites into the story. The narrator immediately
takes over again and states that Vercingetorix brought forward servos, revealing
the scantiness of Vercingetorix’ argument. The narratees can compare Verc-
ingetorix’ own words with the narrator text and will reach the conclusion here
more than in the rest of the speech that Vercingoterix is a convincing liar and,
thus, a dangerous demagogue – a real threat for Rome.115
Another effect of these directly presented fragments is related to the alter-
nation in the tense forms in the indirectly presented parts of this speech. These
have, as said, a structuring effect but this is not the only effect that the narrator
achieves by alternating in the use of deictic centres. There might also be an-
other effect audible for a Roman narratee who read the text aloud.116 A speaker
does not only utter a speech in one tone of voice but he will also vary it in dic-
tion and volume. It is my impression that the narrator has tried to bring about
this variation in diction and volume by means of the use of past and pres-
ent subjunctives. The combination of vero and the perfect subjunctive in the
second part of the speech seems to suggest that at equitum vero Vercingetorix

112 Rasmussen 1963: 36–40.
113 Tsitsiou-Cheldioni 2010: 136.
115 All direct speeches in my corpus (Caes. Gall. 7.20.8-12, 7.38.6-10, 7.50.4-6, 7.77) seem
to have in common that the narratees have to come to a certain conclusion from these
speeches themselves.
116 A Roman read the passages in oratio recta with a different tone of voice than narrator text
(Rasmussen 1963: 17).

184 chapter 4
raised his voice, for instance. Roman narratees, reading aloud, may have found
a clue in equitum vero to do so as well. Their voice, then, becomes even louder
at the end of the speech, when Vercingetorix claims that he can prove his point
in the most convincing tone of voice possible. This part is represented as direct
speech and the transition from indirect to direct speech seems to underscore
the energy and ensuing success of the speech.117 At this point, loud cheers and
excited screams of his audience would be the only possible reaction. This, of
course, is exactly how the crowd reacts as they exult that Vercingetorix is the
greatest leader (a collective sentiment in Caes. Gall. 7.21.1).
Vercingetorix is successful in reaching his initial communicative goal and
even achieves more than that. He is not only cleared from all accusations but
the Gauls also see him as a great leader and are willing to do as he says. In this
respect, the speech is similar to that of Caesar in Caes. Gall. 1.40. In the latter
speech, Caesar not only takes away the fear of his troops but also incites them
for ensuing fights. Just like Caesar, Vercingetorix knows how to get his men
behind him. The form of Vercingetorix’ speech and its effects on his addressees
emphasize his oratorial power and rabble-rousing talents and, thus, the nar-
rator also seems to reach a communicative goal of his own. He characterizes
Vercingetorix as a serious threat to Rome.
4.3.3 The Battle of Bourges, Caes. Gall. 7.22-31

After Vercingetorix’ convincing speech, the Gauls seem to stand united behind
him and start working hard to defend themselves and to prepare for battle.
During these preparations and the ensuing battle there seems to be no time
for speech or thought, as these capita hardly contain representations of speech
and thought. The speeches and thoughts in this episode make up only 25%
of the narrative.118 The speech and thought representations that do occur are
very short indirectly presented speeches, mostly commands, laments and brief
exhortations.
There is one caput, caput 26, that stands out, as it contains relatively many
thoughts and the longest speech of the episode (18 words). The caput shows
the impact of a siege on Gallic men and women (i.e. what it’s like).

Omnia experti Galli, quod res nulla successerat, postero die consil-
ium ceperunt ex oppido profugere hortante et iubente Vercingetorige.
117 Rasmussen 1963: 133. Other speeches with this form occur at Caes. Gall.5.30 and 7.38.
118 The total amount of words in this episode is 1199, of which 300 occur in representations
of speech and thought.

Id silentio noctis conati non magna iactura suorum sese effecturos sper-
abant, propterea quod neque longe ab oppido castra Vercingetorigis ab-
erant, et palus, quae perpetua intercedebat, Romanos ad insequendum
tardabat. Iamque hoc facere noctu apparabant, cum matres familiae re-
pente in publicum procurrerunt flentesque proiectae ad pedes suorum
omnibus precibus petierunt, ne se et communes liberos hostibus ad sup-
plicium dederent, quos ad capiendam fugam naturae et virium infirmitas
impediret. Ubi eos in sententia perstare viderunt, quod plerumque in
summo periculo timor misericordiam non recipit, conclamare et signifi-
care de fuga Romanis coeperunt. Quo timore perterriti Galli, ne ab equi-
tatu Romanorum viae praeoccuparentur, consilio destiterunt.
The Gauls had tried every expedient, and as nothing had succeeded they
resolved next day to escape from the town, as Vercingetorix urged and
ordered. They hoped that by attempting it in the silence of night they
would accomplish it with no great loss of their men, because the camp
of Vercingetorix was not far from the town, and the marsh, which filled
without break all the space between, must hinder the Romans in pursuit.
And it was now night and they were already preparing to do this, when
the matrons suddenly rushed out of doors, and, flinging themselves with
tears at the feet of their men, with prayers and supplications besought
them not to surrender, to the tender mercies of the enemy, themselves
and their common children, whom natural weakness hampered from
taking flight. When they saw that the men were firm in their purpose,
for as a rule in extreme peril fear admits no sense of pity, they began to
cry out in a body and to make signs to the Romans as touching the flight.
So the Gauls were terror-struck by the fear that the Roman cavalry might
seize the roads before them, and they abandoned their design.
The first speech in this excerpt is a mentioned speech concerning a plan of the
male Gauls. They plan to flee the city, taking commands from Vercingetorix.
The reason why they want to do this is given in two clauses depending on
propterea quod. Because the clauses occur in an environment in which the
thoughts and feelings of characters are expressed and the clauses contain im-
perfect tense forms (aberant, intercedebat, tardabat), they are candidates for
an interpretation as free indirect thought. The clauses themselves, however,
contain no elements deriving from the deictic centre of the Gauls and give,
therefore, no further clues in this direction. The clauses describe states of af-
fairs that the Gauls considered in their decision making but the narrator takes
full responsibility for their wording and truth value.

186 chapter 4
When the Gauls are about to leave the city, their plan turns out to be rather
cowardly since they want to leave their women and children behind. The plea of
the women not to be abandoned, depending on petierunt, contains the expres-
sion hostibus, clearly deriving from the deictic centre of these matres. Together
with the emphatic communes liberos, the expression hostibus adds to the urgency
of their plea and the narratee becomes involved in their situation. The perspec-
tive of the women is maintained in the next sentence in which they see (viderunt)
that their men do not change their minds. Then, by mentioning several speeches
at once, the narrator narrates that the women alerted the Romans about the
flight. The sound of these women pleading and then shouting to the Romans is
almost the only human sound presented in this episode. The Gauls retreat after
the reason (fear) is given in a collective sentiment depending on perterriti.
The pleas, fear and anger of the women and the fear of the men convey
briefly to the narratees what the siege was like for these Gauls. Thus, the nar-
rator sketches a picture of men trying to flee in a cowardly way in the dead
of night, while their wives and mothers betray them. The perspective in this
whole caput explicitly lies with the Gauls and their women. The narrator does
not once reveal himself as a Roman in the excerpt. He refers to the Romans
with Romani or, even, hostes (in the pleas of the women) and not with nos or
nostri. This allows that narratees are more easily drawn into the atmosphere of
fear, despair and betrayal on the Gallic side. The perspective of the Gauls will
also be used to narrate the decisive part of the battle (Caes. Gall. 7.28ff).
First, however, the narrator briefly turns to Caesar, who sees an opportunity
to fight and tells his troops what he wants them to do.

Postero die Caesar …, suosque languidius in opere versari iussit et quid
fieri vellet ostendit.
On the morrow, ... he ordered his men to move more leisurely about the
work, and showed them what he wanted to be done.
The second command in the excerpt above is of a specific form. It is a men-

tioned speech in which the complement has the form of a subordinated ques-
tion, summarizing the speech without being specific about its content. This
form of speech is used at other occasions in this corpus to summarize speeches
of which the content has already been narrated (see e.g. Caes. Gall. 1.20.6) but
here this is not the case. Here, the narratee is not informed about the content
of quid fieri vellet. The effect is that the narratees, as it were, see that Caesar is
speaking but cannot hear what exactly Caesar is saying. That is, the narratees

do not know Caesar’s plan until it is executed in the story world and its sepa-
rate steps are narrated. The first steps become clear in the next sentence.
Caes. Gall. 7.27.3

Legionibusque intra vineas in occulto expeditis, cohortatus ut aliquando
pro tantis laboribus fructum victoriae perciperent, eis qui primi murum as-
cendissent praemia proposuit militibusque signum dedit. Illi subito ex
omnibus partibus evolaverunt murumque celeriter compleverunt.
The legions made ready for action secretly under cover of the mantlets;
and having urged them to reap at length the fruit of victory in return for
their great labours, he offered prizes to those who should first mount the
wall, and gave the signal to the troops. They dashed out suddenly from all
sides and speedily lined the wall.
Troops are made ready for battle and climb the walls. These were the first two
steps of Caesar’s plan.
This excerpt is interesting for another reason as well. Within the episode
about the battle of Bourges, this excerpt contains the only candidate for what
is known as a pre-battle exhortation speech.119 Caesar incites his men in two
steps: he urges them to reap victory and promises money to those who first
climb the walls. The clause depending on cohortatus does contain the mimetic
elements aliquando and tantis laboribus, but is nevertheless a rather short indi-
rect speech. The other speech is, strictly speaking, a mentioned speech because
no verb accompanies praemia. Especially the first speech seems to be what we
would now call a one-liner. Caesar’s one-liner is effective, given that in the next
sentence his men have rapidly filled the walls of Bourges (compleverunt).
The narratees are still unaware of the further course of the plan, as are the
Gauls. The next passage is narrated largely from the perspective of the Gauls
(hostes perterriti) and the content of quid fieri vellet starts to become clearer for
the narratees as the events unfold and the Gauls see what the Roman troops do
(viderunt). Because the narrator has first presented Caesar’s plans by means of
the unspecific quid fieri vellet, the brilliance of the plan is revealed only when
its execution is in full swing:
119 See Albertus 1908 for examples in historiography. Hansen 1993 discusses the genre of
battle exhortations and gives examples in several Latin and Greek historiographers. He
argues that “the whole genre [of battle exhortations] was a literary and rhetorical fiction,
not a historical fact.” In Adema 2016, I discuss the forms and functions of several exhor-
tation speeches in Caesar.

188 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 7.28.1-2.

Hostes re nova perterriti muro turribusque deiecti in foro ac locis paten-
tioribus cuneatim constiterunt, hoc animo ut si qua ex parte obviam con-
tra veniretur acie instructa depugnarent. Vbi neminem in aequum locum
sese demittere, sed toto undique muro circumfundi viderunt, veriti ne
omnino spes fugae tolleretur, abiectis armis ultimas oppidi partes conti-
nenti impetu petiverunt, parsque ibi, cum angusto exitu portarum se ipsi
premerent, a militibus, pars iam egressa portis ab equitibus est interfecta;
nec fuit quisquam, qui praedae studeret.
The enemy were panic-stricken by the surprise, and when they were
hurled down from the wall and the turrets they stood fast in wedge-
formations in the market-place and the more open places, with intent,
if a movement were made from any side upon them, to deploy into line
and fight to a finish. When they saw no one coming down on to the level
ground, but that the troops were pouring round everywhere all along the
wall, they feared that the hope of escape might be cut off altogether, and,
casting away their arms, they made in a continuous rush for the farthest
parts of the town; and part, as they crowded one another at the narrow
passage of the gates, were slain there by the troops, part after they had got
out of the gates by the cavalry, and no one had any thought for plunder.
The narratees become aware of the thoughts and, especially, the emotions of the
Gauls. This effect is achieved by the gradual display of information about Caesar’s
plans. The narratees may not share the fear of the inhabitants of Bourges but what
they can experience is the awe and surprise the enemies must have felt about
this strategy. The narrator narrates that Roman troops fill the walls (compleverunt)
and continues with the psychological reaction of the Gauls (perterriti). Their fear
causes a physical reaction: the Gauls position themselves in formation in open
areas and are ready to deploy into line (the ut-clause depending on hoc animo).
The next step of the Roman troops (fill the whole wall) is explicitly presented
from the Gallic standpoint by means of the verb viderunt. The complement of
viderunt consists of two parts, one explaining what the Gauls expected to hap-
pen (demittere) and the other describing what did happen (circumfundi), The
contrast between the expectation of the Gauls and the actual event emphasizes
their surprise and terror. Their psychological reaction is presented (veriti), fol-
lowed by their physical reaction (petiverunt). In this excerpt, the narrator uses
the perspective of the Gauls and presents (roughly) the same pattern twice: the
troops see what their enemies do (focalisation), they have a psychological re-
action to it (indirect thought or mentioned thought) and then react physically.

After the repetition of this pattern, the narrator continues to use the Gallic
standpoint (angusto exitu, ipsi, iam egressa) to narrate the unfortunate out-
come of the events for the Gauls. The next sentence is presented from the
temporal standpoint of the narrator (nec fuit ... studeret). After this narratorial
praise of the troops, the narrator rounds of this episode by giving an account
of the losses at the Gallic side (Caes. Gall.7.28.3).
Nine hundred fugitives flee to Vercingetorix, who turns out to have strategic
insight. Vercingetorix has been expecting the fugitives and has taken precau-
tions because he feared (veritus) that a large group of fugitives together would
create unrest in his camp. The fugitives are taken to the camp in small groups.
Caes. Gall. 7.28.5

Denique ex omni numero, qui fuit circiter milium XL, vix DCCC, qui
primo clamore audito se ex oppido eiecerunt, incolumes ad Vercinget-
origem pervenerunt. Quos ille multa iam nocte silentio sic ex fuga
excepit, veritus ne qua in castris ex eorum concursu et misericordia vulgi
seditio oreretur, ut procul in via dispositis familiaribus suis principibus-
que civitatum disparandos deducendosque ad suos curaret, quae cuique
civitati pars castrorum ab initio obvenerat.
Eventually of all the number, which was about forty thousand, scarcely
eight hundred, who had flung themselves out of the town when they
heard the first shout, reached Vercingetorix in safety. He intercepted the
refugees late at night in silence, fearing that a mutiny might arise if they
were met and pitied by the common sort: therefore, by stationing his own
friends and the chiefs of states at some distance along the roads, he took
steps to separate them and conduct them to their friends in the part of
the camp allotted to each state from the beginning.
In this excerpt, Vercingetorix shows that he can think ahead in difficult times.
Despite the loss of the city of Bourges, he keeps his act together and makes sure
that the adversity of the city of Bourges and its inhabitants does not affect the
morale of his troops. Vercingetorix is the non-Roman individual that thinks
most in this corpus, often displaying the strategic insight he shows here.120
120 The thoughts of Vercingetorix are presented in Caes. Gall. 7.28 (veritus), Caes. Gall. 7.64
(sperabat), Caes. Gall. 7.71 (consilium capit and instituit). The thoughts of non-Romans
are usually presented as ‘collective sentiments’, e.g. showing what non-Romans think or
feel about events or conveying their fear and admiration for Caesar. Labienus is the (Ro-
man) individual that thinks most after Caesar (see Caes. Gall. 7.57-63).

190 chapter 4
His strategic insight and his leadership are emphasized even more in the
next caput. After a conference is summoned, Vercingetorix addresses the
Gauls, both comforting and exhorting them (consolatus cohortatusque, Caes.
Gall. 7.29.1).121 His speech is presented as a rather long indirect speech (110
words) in which he gives his analysis of the lost battle, claims that he himself
had warned to do otherwise, referring back to the time in which he proposed
to burn down Bourges (Caes. Gall. 7.14). However, he does not spend too
much time on putting down his men. Rather he focuses on the steps that need
to be taken next. He himself will bring together all Gauls, while his men have
to fortify the camp. The Gauls react approvingly:

Fuit haec oratio non ingrata Gallis, et maxime quod ipse animo non defecerat
tanto accepto incommodo neque se in occultum abdiderat et conspectum
multitudinis fugerat, plusque animo providere et praesentire existimabatur,
quod re integra primo incendendum Avaricum, post deserendum censu-
erat. itaque ut reliquorum imperatorum res adversae auctoritatem minu
unt, sic huius ex contrario dignitas incommodo accepto in dies augebatur.
This speech was not unpleasing to the Gauls, chiefly because the com-
mander himself had not failed them after the great disaster they had suf-
fered, nor hidden out of their sight and avoided the gaze of the host; and
they considered his foresight and forethought the greater because, while
the matter was still open, he had first advocated the burning, and after-
wards the abandonment, of Avaricum. And thus, whereas the authority
of commanders in general is diminished by reverses, so his position, on
the contrary, was daily enhanced by the disaster they had suffered.
The clauses containing the pluperfect tense forms defecerat, abdiderat and
fugerat express the reason why the Gauls approve of Vercingetorix’ speech. De-
spite the indicatives we therefore hear about their opinion and this is, there-
fore, a candidate for an interpretation as free indirect speech or thought. This
interpretation is corroborated by the mimetic element tanto accepto incom-
modo. The narrator presents these actions of Vercingetorix both as facts and
as part of the opinions of the Galls. The thought animo providere et praesentire
is presented as a nominitivo cum infinitivo-construction and is followed by an-
other candidate for a free indirect thought by the Gauls, containing the pluper-
fect censuerat. This presentational form seems to convey that both his people
121 The speech is similar to that of Caesar after the battle of Gergovia (Caes. Gall. 7.52-53.1).

and the narrator give Vercingetorix credit for having foreseen this highly un-
fortunate situation.
In the next sentence, starting with Itaque, the narrator emphasizes by
means of a comparison to other generals after a defeat that it was really quite
an achievement that Vercingetorix was able to raise the spirits of his men. The
Gauls and Vercingetorix get to work. The narrator, thus, uses the aftermath of
the battle of Bourges to show how the Gauls spring back again, fortifying their
camp and finding new troops. He praises Vercingetorix by portraying him as
the one responsible for the sudden zest for work among the Gauls. The narrator
then leaves the Gauls and Vercingetorix while they are preparing for what will
be the next major phase in the war, the battle of Gergovia (Caes. Gall. 7.36ff).
4.3.4 The Haeduans, Part 1, Caes. Gall. 7.32-35

Before this battle is fought, however, the narrator inserts an episode about a dip-
lomatic intervention of Caesar.122 He is asked to intervene in an internal question
about the leadership of the Haeduans. Almost fifty percent of the words in this
episodes are part of a speech or a thought.123 The forms and length of individ-
ual speeches and thoughts differ, however, and seem to do so to reach specific
aims of the narrator. In this episode, long speeches are used to explain prob-
lems, whereas indirectly presented thoughts are meant to explain how Caesar
reaches a decision. Once the decision is made, Caesar’s solution to the Haeduan
problem is presented in summarized forms of speech, viz. mentioned speeches
and short indirect speeches with elements deriving from the narrator. The alter-
nation between different forms of speeches and thoughts thus shows how the
narrator aptly adjusts the forms of speeches and thoughts to present the neces-
sary information and desired characterization of Caesar in an efficient form.124
The episode starts when the Haeduans come to Caesar. They arrive when Cae-
sar has already decided to go after his enemy again, as it is the time of the year
in which war can and should be fought (ipso anni tempore ad gerendum bellum).
122 This discussion of the Hadeuan defection is presented in summarized form in Adema
2014.
123 In sum, 48% of the words is part of a speech of thought (247 out of 517 words).
124 An episode that follows a similar pattern is the episode about Dumnorix in the first book
of Bellum Gallicum (Caes. Gall. 1.17-20). Also in the case of the problems with Dumnorix,
Caesar is informed about the problems in several long indirect speeches. Caesar reactions
to this are presented at a rather fast pace. The discussion that Caesar has with Dumnorix,
for instance, contains only speeches by Caesar, and these are presented in a summarized
form (Caes. Gall. 1.20 ostendit; proponit; monet; dicit). Caesar is presented as an efficient
problem solver.

192 chapter 4

Caesar Avarici complures dies commoratus summamque ibi copiam
frumenti et reliqui commeatus nactus exercitum ex labore atque inopia
refecit. Iam prope hieme confecta cum ipso anni tempore ad gerendum
bellum vocaretur et ad hostem proficisci constituisset, sive eum ex palu-
dibus silvisque elicere sive obsidione premere posset, legati ad eum princ-
ipes Haeduorum veniunt oratum ut maxime necessario tempore civitati
subveniat: summo esse in periculo rem, quod, cum singuli magistratus an-
tiquitus creari atque regiam potestatem annum obtinere consuessent, duo
magistratum gerant et se uterque eorum legibus creatum esse dicat. Horum
esse alterum Convictolitavem, florentem et illustrem adulescentem, alterum
Cotum, antiquissima familia natum atque ipsum hominem summae poten-
tiae et magnae cognationis, cuius frater Valetiacus proximo anno eundem
magistratum gesserit. Civitatem esse omnem in armis; divisum senatum,
divisum populum, suas cuiusque eorum clientelas. Quod si diutius alatur
controversia, fore uti pars cum parte civitatis confligat. Id ne accidat, posi-
tum in eius diligentia atque auctoritate.
Caesar halted at Avaricum for several days, and by the immense quantity
of corn and all other supplies which he found there recuperated the army
after toil and want. The winter was now almost spent; the very season was
inviting him to continue the war, and he had decided to march against
the enemy to see whether he could entice them out of the marshes and
woods or reduce them by blockade, when at this juncture chiefs of the
Haeduans came on a mission to him to beseech his succour for the state
in a crisis of absolute urgency. They said that the administration was in
the utmost peril, because, in spite of their ancient custom of electing sin-
gle magistrates to hold kingly power for a year, two persons were exercis-
ing office, and each of them declared himself legally elected; that one of
the two was Convictolitavis, a successful and distinguished young man;
that the other was Cotus, the scion of a most ancient house, and himself
a man of dominant power and noble connection, whose brother Valeti-
acus had exercised the same office in the previous year; that the whole
state was in arms, the senate was divided, and each claimant had his own
following; that, if the quarrel were any longer fomented, one part of the
state must inevitably come to blows with the other; that the prevention
of that depended upon Caesar’s energy and authority.
A mentioned thought (ad ... constituisset) presents Caesar’s decision to go after

his enemy and it is followed by the goals that Caesar wants to achieve in an

indirect presentation (sive ... posset). At the end of the episode, we will see that
Caesar indeed achieves these goals, albeit with some delay (Caes. Gall. 7.35.1).
The delay is caused by his mediation for the Haeduans.
The Haeduans suffer from an internal conflict concerning their leadership
and this conflict is explained both to Caesar and the narratees by means of an
indirect speech of 97 words. According to Rambaud this speech is presented as
a short summary (bref résumé) but compared to other speeches in this corpus
its length of 97 words means that it is a rather long speech.125 Only ten speeches
are longer in my corpus. Rambaud interprets this speech as giving emphasis
to the diligentia and auctoritas of Caesar.126 The speech indeed shows that the
Haeduans pay great respect to Caesars skills as a diplomat and leader. What is
more important than this general picture of Caesar, however, is the local func-
tion of this speech, in my opinion. Within the episode, it functions to convince
both Caesar and the narratees that Caesar was the man for this job and needed
to postpone his own plans.
The speech contains several mimetic elements, such as maxime necessario
tempore and summo in periculo. These elements enhance the vividness of this
indirect speech and add to its persuasive vigour, bringing about the strength
and legitimacy of the appeal. Thus, they emphasize the communicative goal
of the speaking characters, who need to persuade Caesar. At the same time,
they have this exact same function on the level of the narrator and his nar-
ratees: the narratees, too, need to be persuaded that Caesar has to solve this
internal Haeduan problem first, despite his decision to go after the enemy. In
short, the speech has an informative and persuasive function in both speech
situations and is presented in a form that befits these f unctions.
The speech of the Haeduans is preparatory and perhaps even apologetic for
Caesar’s eventual decision to postpone his chase of the enemy, in spite of the
start of the season. The passage that immediately follows also suggests that the
narrator feels the need to explain why Caesar decided to help the Haeduans.
The excerpt contains a long series of Caesar’s deliberations (numbered) on the
subject:

Caesar, etsi (1) a bello atque hoste discedere detrimentosum esse existima-
bat, tamen non ignorans (2) quanta ex dissensionibus incommoda oriri
consuessent, (3) ne tanta et tam coniuncta populo Romano civitas, quam
125 Rambaud 1966: 315.

126 Rambaud 1966: 315.

194 chapter 4
ipse semper aluisset omnibusque rebus ornasset, ad vim atque arma de-
scenderet, (4) atque ea pars quae minus sibi confideret auxilia a Vercinget-
orige arcesseret, huic rei praevertendum existimavit et, (5) quod legibus
Haeduorum eis, qui summum magistra tum obtinerent, excedere ex fini-
bus non liceret, ne quid de iure aut de legibus eorum deminuisse videre-
tur, ipse (6) in Haeduos proficisci statuit senatumque omnem et quos inter
controversia esset ad se Decetiam evocavit.
Caesar thought it disastrous to move away from the war and the enemy,
but at the same time he knew full well what great troubles generally
arose from such dissensions; and therefore, to prevent this large state,
so closely connected with Rome—a state which he himself had always
cherished and by every means distinguished—from resorting to armed
violence, wherein the party which had less confidence in itself would
seek succours from Vercingetorix, he thought the matter should receive
his first attention. And, inasmuch as the laws of the Haeduans did not
suffer those who exercised the highest office to leave the country, he de-
termined, in order that he might not appear in any way to disparage their
rights or laws, to proceed in person into the territory of the Haeduans,
and summoned all their senate, together with the parties to the quarrel,
to join him at Decetia.
At the end of his deliberations, Caesar decides to help the Haeduans (huic rei
praevertendum). He even provides the service of visiting them, rather than that
they need to come to him (in Haeduos proficisci). Caesar’s preceding thought
process is presented in several steps, each explaining one aspect of Caesar’s
eventual decisions. First, he reformulates the dilemma in two steps ((1) & (2)).
In this reformulation, the construction with etsi and tamen (the latter followed
by a litotes) already discloses that Caesar will help the Haeduans. Nevertheless,
the etsi clause has an important function: it shows that Caesar is still aware of
his original plan and actual task.
Step (3) shows why the Haeduans, of all people, deserve Caesar’s help. In
this step, possible objections of the narratee that the Haeduans should solve
their own problems are countered. Also considered by Caesar, in step (4), is the
disadvantage of not helping the Haeduans: this will give Vercingetorix more
power. It is clear by now that Caesar will need to help the Haeduans and, thus,
the first of his decisions is explained. But why should Caesar visit the Haed-
uans, when it is them who need something from him? This part of the deci-
sion is, before it is even taken, explained in step (5): Haeduan leaders cannot

come and visit him because they are not allowed to leave their own territory.127
The subjunctives in the quod-clause indicate that this is still part of Caesar’s
thought process.128 Caesar feels the need to show respect to the Haeduans and
their laws and decides to go to them (step (6)).
The step-by-step presentation of Caesar’s thoughts has several effects. Cae-
sar appears to think the problem through in an analytic and structured way
before reaching a decision. At the same time, his deliberations deal with pos-
sible objections against helping the Haeduans. On the level of the narrator,
this someone is the narratee. The presentational form of Caesar’s thoughts en-
sures that Caesar’s decisions are explained to the narratee before they are even
made.129 The narratee is taken along the different steps in Caesar’s thought pro-
cess, all possible objections are countered along the way and the narratee is,
thus, invited to come to the same conclusion as Caesar: he indeed needs to go
to the Haeduans and help them. Once the decision is taken, Caesar immedi-
ately proceeds to action and calls the Haeduans to Decetia.
Apparently, the narrator wanted to give a lot of attention to why Caesar would
revert from his original plan and help the Haeduans. After this, the narrator
makes up for lost time and accelerates the pace of his narrative. One of the ways
in which the acceleration of the pace is achieved is the use of shorter presenta-
tional forms for the remaining speeches, especially those uttered by Caesar.

Cum prope omnis civitas eo convenisset, docereturque paucis clam
convocatis alio loco, alio tempore atque oportuerit fratrem a fratre renun-
tiatum, cum leges duo ex una familia vivo utroque non solum magistratus
creari vetarent, sed etiam in senatu esse prohiberent, Cotum imperium de-
ponere coegit, Convictolitavem, qui per sacerdotes more civitatis intermis-
sis magistratibus esset creatus, potestatem obtinere iussit.
Hoc decreto interposito cohortatus Haeduos, ut controversiarum ac

dissensionis obliviscerentur atque omnibus omissis his rebus huic bello
servirent eaque quae meruissent praemia ab se devicta Gallia exspectar-
ent equitatumque omnem et peditum milia decem sibi celeriter mitterent,
127 Whether this is an actual fact about the Haeduans, we cannot know. On the basis of this
text alone, we can only observe that the narrator wants to explain why Caesar takes the
trouble to go to the Haeduans. The same holds for the explanations by the Haeduans
about their electoral process in the speech depending on doceretur (Caes. Gall. 7.33.3).
129 See my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-34.1.

196 chapter 4
quae in praesidiis rei frumentariae causa disponeret, exercitum in duas

partes divisit: quattuor legiones in Senones Parisiosque Labieno ducen-
das dedit, sex ipse in Arvernos ad oppidum Gergoviam secundum flumen
Elaver duxit; equitatus partem illi attribuit, partem sibi reliquit.
Almost the whole state assembled there, and he was informed that in
a small and secret assembly, held in a place and at a time which were
irregular, one brother had declared the other elected, although the law
not only forbade two of one house, in the lifetime of both, to be elected
as officers of state, but even precluded them from membership of the
senate. He therefore compelled Cotus to lay down the supreme authority,
and ordered Convictolitavis, who had been elected by the priests, accord-
ing to the tradition of the state when the succession of civil officers had
been interrupted, to hold the power. Having made this decision between
them, he urged the Haeduans to forget disputes and discord and, leaving
all such matters alone, to devote themselves to the present campaign, in
anticipation of the rewards they deserved from himself so soon as the
conquest of Gaul was complete. He bade them send him speedily all their
horsemen and ten thousand infantry, that he might put them in various
garrisons to protect the corn-supply. He then divided the army into two
parts. Four legions he gave to Labienus to be led against the Senones and
Parisii, six he led in person along the river Allier towards the town of Ger-
govia, in the country of the Arverni; he assigned part of the cavalry to
Labienus, part he left for himself.
This excerpt contains four speech representations. The first speech represen-
tation is presented in a subordinate clause, thus giving it a less important sta-
tus than the two instances that follow in main clauses. Nevertheless, this first
speech, depending on doceretur, is presented in quite an elaborate form. The
indirectly rendered speech counts 32 words and, what is more, contains sev-
eral mimetic elements (e.g. the adverb clam, the repetition of alio, the formula-
tion fratrem a fratre). Thus, the narrator gives ample attention to the informa-
tion on the basis of which Caesar will solve the conflict.130
The presentation of Caesar’s actual mediation is, in turn, rather short. His
reaction is presented in three parts, two of which occur in the main clauses
governing the doceretur-clause. A mentioned speech (coegit) and a short
130 Again, we cannot be sure whether this was an actual law of the Haeduans or if it was
made up by men supporting Convictolitavis.

indirect speech (iussit) present the two parts of his decision.131 Despite its brev-
ity, the command contains a sound argumentation of why Convictolitavis had
to be the leader. His opponent Cotus was chosen at the wrong time and place,
by the wrong person and, above all, unlawfully, but Convictolitavis was cho-
sen intermissis magistratibus, per sacerdotes and more civitatis. In these two
representations of speech, Caesar is presented as simply following the rules
of the Haeduans and refraining from too much interference in their internal
problems.
In the third part of his reaction, Caesar moves away from the internal con-
flict and turns to demanding troops from the Haeduans. In comparison to the
two first parts of his reaction, this part gets most attention. The narrator thus
emphasizes the part in which Caesar makes arrangements for the good of the
Romans. Nevertheless, the arrangements are governed by a participle clause
and thus presented as subordinated and backgrounded to Caesar’s following
actions (divisit, dedit, duxit, attribuit, reliquit). It is with these swift and decisive
actions that Caesar reaches the goal he set out for himself at the beginning
of the episode (Caes. Gall. 7.32.2). He wanted to entice his enemy out of the
marshes and woods and, indeed, Vercingetorix, leaves the marshes and woods
as he follows Caesar on the banks of the river Allier:
Caes. Gall. 7.35.1

Qua re cognita Vercingetorix omnibus interruptis eius fluminis pontibus
ab altera fluminis parte iter facere coepit.
As soon as Vercingetorix heard of it he broke up all the bridges over that

river and began to march along the other side thereof.
The narrator presents the episode as if little time was lost by Caesar. The ep-
isode portrays Caesar as a competent, decisive and efficient general. This, of
course, is how the episode can be connected to the more general communica-
tive goals of Bellum Gallicum.
Apart from that, the episode also serves a more local goal. It functions as
a prelude to the eventual treason of the Haeduans and their switch over to
Vercingetorix, a process that starts in Caes. Gall. 7.37 and is concluded in Caes.
Gall. 7.55. The narrator presents the defection of the Haeduans in such a way
that Caesar cannot be blamed and starts here, by showing that Caesar was
131 Strictly speaking, the clause Convictolitavem ... potestatem obtinere iussit is structurally
ambiguous (Pinkster 1990: 128–9).

198 chapter 4
loyal to the Haeduans and treats them as an autonomous people, allied to the
Romans.132 The episode above introduces Convictolitavis into the story as the
Haeduan leader who owes his leadership to Caesar. This becomes significant
when Convictolitavis, only two capita later (Caes. Gall. 7.37), starts betraying
the Romans and stirs young Haeduans to revolt. There, the narratee is invited
to draw the conclusion that this Haeduan is an unreliable and ungrateful
character.133
All in all, the representations of speech and thought in the episode can be
connected to more general communicative goals such as the positive portrayal
of Caesar and to more local communicative goals such as the explanation why
Caesar takes a specific action. The goals of the speaking characters are given
attention when they are in line with the goals of the narrator. The alternation
of different forms of speeches and thoughts in this episode not only shows that
Caesar the general is competent, decisive and efficient but it also shows that
the narrator of Bellum Gallicum, too, knows what goals he wants to achieve
and how he can achieve them as efficiently as possible. Long speeches and
thoughts are inserted when necessary but when action needs to be taken, the
narrator sees no reason to waste words on speeches and thoughts and uses
short (summarized) indirect speeches or mentioned speeches to indicate what
has been said.134
4.3.5 Gergovia, Part 1, Caes. Gall. 7.35-36

The narrator will return to the Haeduans soon. From now on, the narrator al-
ternates between two story lines until the defection of the Haeudans is com-
pleted in Caes. Gall. 7.59. The story line about the Haeduans is a story line of
deceit and treason and contains many speeches. The second story line is about
132 Rambaud 1966: 316.

133 Barlow 1998: 154 observes that the narrator had a particular problem in his presentation
of the Haeduan defection. Because the Haeudan Diviciacus had been presented as a good
friend and reliable ally of the Romans, he could not simply portray the Haeduans as a
barbaric and deceitful tribe and use that as the reason for their defection. Barlow shows
how the narrator, therefore, blames the individual Haeduans Eporedorix, Viridomarus,
Convictolitavis and Litaviccus for the defection and devalues them by narrating about
their ungratefulness, proclivity for bribery and mendacity.
134 Efficiency is not the only characteristic that the narrator and the character Caesar share.
Pelling 2013: 57 observes a similarity in authority. “The man who can write like that, who
understands that much about campaigning, goes closely with the man who could think
and act like that, who could get his deeds right just as he gets his narrative right; and that
is not a man to take on lightly.”

the battle of Gergovia and contains almost exclusively speeches and thoughts
in mentioned and short indirect form.135
The first part of the Gergovia story line is exemplary in this respect as it con-
tains only short commands, decisions and some deliberation. Speeches and
thoughts make up only 19% of the narrative.136 The narrator seems to want to
maintain a certain pace and does not linger too long on speeches and thoughts
when he tells about the journeys travelled by both Vercingetorix and Caesar.
In two capita, they both have reached Gergovia and set up their camps. The
narrator then returns to the story line about the Haeduans.
4.3.6 The Haeduans, Part 2, Caes. Gall. 7. 37-40

The second part on the Haeduan defection contains a relatively large amount
of speech and thought representation, about fifty percent of all words.137 Many
of these are uttered by Convictolitavis, the Haeduan who starts the process
that will lead to the defection of the Haeduans.
The narrator explicitly reintroduces Convictolitavis into the narrative,
repeating the information that Convictolitavis was appointed by Caesar:
Caes. Gall. 7.37.1

Dum haec ad Gergoviam geruntur, Convictolitavis Haeduus, cui magis-
tratum adiudicatum a Caesare demonstravimus, sollicitatus ab Arvernis
pecunia cum quibusdam adulescentibus conloquitur ...
During these operations about Gergovia Convictolitavis the Haeduan, to

whom, as above mentioned, the magistracy had been adjudged by Cae-
sar, was tempted by a bribe on the part of the Arverni, and held converse
with certain young men ...
This self quotation in the form of indirect discourse seems to function in order
to contrast the gratitude that might be expected from Convictolitavis with his
factual betrayal.
Convictolitavis is bribed by the Arverni and, in turn, shares his bribe with
several young Haeduans. He addresses them in an inflammatory speech in
which he himself states that he owes his position to Caesar.
135 The presentation of the Gergovia story line is analysed in detail by Choitz 2011, who
shows how the narrator presents the episode in such a way that Caesar is not responsible
for the loss of this battle.
136 The total amount of word is 202, of which 38 are part of a speech or thought.
137 In sum, 308 words out of 598 words are part of a speech or thought (52%).

200 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 7.37.2

cum his praemium communicat hortaturque eos, ut se liberos et impe-
rio natos meminerint. unam esse Haeduorum civitatem, quae certissimam
Galliae victoriam distineat; eius auctoritate reliquas contineri; qua traducta
locum consistendi Romanis in Gallia non fore. esse nonnullo se Caesaris
beneficio affectum, sic tamen, ut iustissimam apud eum causam obtinuerit.
sed plus communi libertati tribuere. cur enim potius Haedui de suo iure et
de legibus ad Caesarem disceptatorem quam Romani ad Haeduos veniant?
The Haeduan shared his bribe with them, and urged them to remem-
ber that they were born to freedom and command; that the state of the
Haeduans was the only bar to the absolutely certain victory of Gaul; by
its influence the rest were held in check; that, if it were brought over, the
Romans would have no foothold in Gaul; that it was true that he himself
had received some benefit at Caesar’s hands, but simply in the sense that
he had won an entirely just cause before him, and that he had a greater
duty to the general liberty. He asked why the Haeduans should come to
Caesar to decide a question of their own right and law, rather than the
Romans to the Haeduans?
Convictolitavis states that Caesar did not even have the right to make this deci-
sion and just followed Haeduan law. After this speech, Convictolitavis and the
young Haeduans make plans how to achieve their goals. The exact nature of
their plans remains hidden from the narratee, however. The narrator only tells
that Litaviccus was sent to Caesar with 10.000 men.
Travelling to Gergovia, Litaviccus gathers his troops and speaks to them.
His two speeches are presented as direct speeches separated by a testimony of
other speakers, thus following a similar pattern as the pair of direct speeches
delivered by Vercingetorix in Caes. Gall. 7.20.138 In the first part, Litaviccus in-
forms his men that two chief men of the Haeduans were killed by the Romans,
showing a great display of emotion and tears (Caes. Gall. 7.38.1). Litaviccus
lies, however. The narratees can only guess this from the previous scheming
but they are not certain about this until the narrator states that Litaviccus then
produces false witnesses.
The Haeduans believe Litaviccus and are outraged. They ask Litaviccus
what to do. He proposes to march to Gergovia and switch over to the Arverni.
138 Rasmussen 1963: 40.

Caes. Gall. 7.38.6-10

“Quasi vero,” inquit ille, “consili sit res, ac non necesse sit nobis Gergoviam
contendere et cum Arvernis nosmet coniungere. An dubitamus quin nefario
facinore admisso Romani iam ad nos interficiendos concurrant? Proinde, si
quid in nobis animi est, persequamur eorum mortem qui indignissime in-
terierunt, atque hos latrones interficiamus.” Ostendit cives Romanos, qui
eius praesidi fiducia una erant: magnum numerum frumenti commea-
tusque diripit, ipsos crudeliter excruciatos interficit.
“As if,” quoth he, “this were a matter of counsel, and it were not necessary
for us to make speed to Gergovia and join ourselves to the Arverni! Or can
we doubt that after committing an abominable crime the Romans are al-
ready hastening hither to slay us? Wherefore, if we have any spirit in us, let
us avenge the death of those who have perished most shamefully, and let
us slay these brigands.” He pointed to Roman citizens, who were accompa-
nying his force in reliance on his safeguard; he plundered a large quantity
of corn and supplies, and put the Romans to death with cruel tortures.
The narrator contrasts the expression hos latrones uttered by Litaviccus with
cives Romanos in his own text.139 Thus, the reality that Litaviccus evokes in his
speech is sharply contrasted with the reality the narrator presents. Litaviccus
does not kill latrones, he kills cives Romanos who had put faith in him. Direct
speech and narrator text are two opposites when the responsibility for the for-
mulation is concerned and these opposites are used here to a maximum effect.
The narrator lets Litaviccus paint a negative picture of the Romans and sets
this picture straight in his own words.
The speech of Litaviccus has separate functions on the level of the story and
on the level of the narrator and his narratees. On the level of the story world
Litaviccus incites feelings of hate in the Gauls. On the level of the narrator and
his narratees, the speech makes clear that the Gauls are verschlagen, listig und
grausam.140 The narratees have to draw this conclusion themselves; the narrator
does not tell them beforehand that Litaviccus is telling lies. It is only after the
speeches of Litaviccus that the narrator labels them explicitly as a lie (eodem
mendacio, Caes. Gall. 7.38). The form of direct speech here is the form most
suitable to show, rather than tell, what Litaviccus does by means of his words.
139 Cf. Caes. Gall. 7.20 in which the narrator contrasts the expression Romanos milites in the
speech with servos in the narrator text.
140 Rasmussen 1963: 43.

202 chapter 4
Caesar hears of Litaviccus’ scheme from no other than Eporedorix, who

turns out to be very much alive in caput 39. The narrator first states that this
report caused Caesar much anxiety because Caesar had always been particu-
larly indulgent towards the Haeduans.141 This is one of the few cases that the
narratees hear of an emotion from Caesar (what it is like).
Caesar realises that swift action is required and travels to Litaviccus and his
men. He commands his cavalry to attack but not to kill anyone. Eporedorix and
Viridomarus are ordered to show themselves, thus letting their countrymen
know that they are not dead. The Haeduans see them and surrender, while
Litaviccus flees. Much attention is given, in this short excerpt, to the contrast
between the general attitude of the Haeduans towards Rome (positive) and the
attitude of these few men. The narrator emphasizes that Caesar even showed
mercy to the Haeduans and that he made sure that the Haeduans knew this
(Caes. Gall. 7.41.1). This portrayal of Caesar as a merciful victor is the second
step of the narrator in his strategy to take away the blame from Caesar for the
defection of the Haduans (cf. Caes. Gall. 7.32-35).
4.3.7 Gergovia, Part 2, Caes. Gall. 7.41

Caesar starts his journey back towards Gergovia. Normally, the narrator would
present this in one sentence (cf. ad Genavam pervenit, in Caes. Gall. 1.7.1)
as the pace of travel scenes is generally high in Bellum Gallicum. The road
does not seem to be a space fit for speaking and thinking in Bellum Gallicum.
When Caesar and his troops march from one part of Gaul to another the only
speeches that occur are short commands or summarized exchanges of infor-
mation (mentioned speeches). Caesar’s journey to Gergovia deviates from this
regular form of presentation and over fifty percent of the episode is made up
by speech and thought representation.142 This relatively high number is due to
an indirect speech of 53 words.143 The indirect speech is preceded by a men-
tioned speech (exponent) summarizing the content of the speech. It informs
Caesar that Fabius is in great danger.
141 The clause contains a pluperfect tense form and could be interpreted as free indirect
thought: Magna adfectus sollicitudine hoc nuntio Caesar, quod semper Haeduorum civitati
praecipue indulserat. Translation: “This report caused Caesar great anxiety, because he
had always shown especial indulgence to the state of the Haedui.”
142 The speeches presented in this episode together make up 55% of the words (62 out of
112 words).
143 The only other relatively long indirect speech within a travel scene is uttered in a slightly
calmer environment, during an overnight stay near de Allier river (Caes. Gall. 7.54).


Medio fere itinere equites a Fabio missi, quanto res in periculo fuerit, ex-
ponunt. Summis copiis castra oppugnata demonstrant, cum crebro in-
tegri defessis succederent nostrosque assiduo labore defatigarent, quibus
propter magnitudinem castrorum perpetuo esset isdem in vallo permanen-
dum. Multitudine sagittarum atque omnis generis telorum multos vulner-
atos; ad haec sustinenda magno usui fuisse tormenta. Fabium discessu eo-
rum duabus relictis portis obstruere ceteras pluteosque vallo addere et se
in posterum diem similemque casum apparare. His rebus cognitis Caesar
summo studio militum ante ortum solis in castra pervenit.
About halfway thither some troops sent by Fabius related how perilous
had been their case. They reported that the camp had been attacked in
full force, fresh men frequently taking the place of the fatigued and wear-
ing down our troops by incessant toil, inasmuch as the size of the camp
obliged the same men to continue throughout on the rampart; that many
men had been wounded by the swarms of arrows and of every kind of
missile; that the artillery, however, had proved of great use in resisting
these assaults; and that, on the withdrawal of the enemy, Fabius was bar-
ricading all the gates except two, setting screens to the rampart, and pre-
paring for a like event on the morrow. On report of this, Caesar reached
the camp before sunrise, by a supreme effort of the troops.
This exhortation of Caesar and his men to come back to the camp as quickly as
possible is, at the same time, a means for the narrator to incorporate another
thread of the story, viz. the events at Gergovia. It is, thus, an analepsis embedded
in indirect speech and it functions as an update for both Caesar and the narratee.
Caesar complies with the cry for help from the camp, urges his men and
reaches the camp with his usual celeritas before the morning (ante ortum solis).
Because the narrator has already informed his narratees what Caesar would
find in the camp, he can now immediately switch back to the Haeduans.
4.3.8 The Haeduans, Part 3, Caes. Gall. 7.42.1-43.3

The Haeduans, in the mean time, have received news about Litaviccus. In two
capita the narrator presents their reactions. These reactions are actions rather
than words and representations of speeches and thoughts make up only ten
percent of the narrative.144 The narrator emphasizes that the Haeduans take
144 In sum, 17 words out of 173 occur in a speech or thought.

204 chapter 4
rumours to be true and immediately react to them by attacking Roman citi-

zens. The narrator does not forget to mention that Convictolitavis, again, plays
an inciting role.
Eventually, however, the Haeduans hear that Caesar holds their soldiers
captive and this changes their attitude. The Haeduans turn against Litaviccus
and send deputies to Caesar to clear themselves, thus saving their men, as the
narrator points out. Their outward behaviour, however, does not take away the
fact that they are now contaminated by their crimes and begin to entertain
secret designs of war, drawing in other tribes into their plans as well.
4.3.9 The Battle of Gergovia/ Gergovia, Part 4, Caes. Gall. 7.43.4-53

The battle of Gergovia contains quite a lot more representations of speeches
and thoughts compared to other battle scenes. It even contains two direct
speeches and fifteen indirect speeches with an average length of 20 words. In
addition, the episode contains seven indirect thoughts, all by Caesar. In sum,
speeches and thoughts make up about 35% of the episode.145 The representa-
tions of speeches and thoughts shows that the battle of Gergovia was no reg-
ular battle.
At the beginning of the episode, the narrator turns to Caesar, who is fully
aware of all the Haeduan conspiracies (quae) presented in the immediately
preceding sentence. Caesar keeps this knowledge hidden when dealing with
the Haeduans:

quae tametsi Caesar intellegebat, tamen, quam mitissime potest, legatos
appellat:
nihil se propter inscientiam levitatemque vulgi gravius de civitate iudicare
neque de sua in Haeduos benevolentia deminuere. ipse maiorem Galliae mo-
tum exspectans, ne ab omnibus civitatibus circumsisteretur, consilia ini-
bat, quemadmodum a Gergovia discederet ac rursus omnem exercitum con-
traheret, ne profectio nata a timore defectionis similis que fugae videretur.
Caesar was fully aware of this; nevertheless he accosted their deputies as

gently as possible, assuring them that the ignorance and inconsequence
of the common people did not make him judge more severely of the
state, nor diminish aught of his personal goodwill towards the Haeduans.
He himself was anticipating a greater rising in Gaul; and that he might
145 These are 430 out of 1229 words.

not be surrounded by all the states, he began to plan how he might with-
draw from Gergovia and once more concentrate the whole army without
allowing a departure occasioned by fear of the revolt to resemble flight.
The narrator contrasts what Caesar thinks with what Caesar says in this ex-
cerpt. The speech of Caesar by itself might have seemed a sign of naivety and
unjustified trust in a deceitful tribe. However, the speech is preceded by the
fact that Caesar was well aware of the Haeduan conspiracies, and moreover,
is followed by several thoughts that show that Caesar is ahead of the Haeduan
game and even knows what to expect in all of Gaul. Caesar’s thoughts, thus,
frame his speech and actions as a deliberate strategy. It is convenient for the
narrator that whereas Caesar’s actions might have been controllable for his
public (by asking Roman troops, for instance), Caesar’s thoughts were not.
The mentioned thought depending on expectans puts the behaviour of
the Haeduans in a much wider perspective. Caesar is expecting the revolt
of the whole of Gaul. This mentioned thought functions as a foreshadowing of
the events the narratee can expect. More importantly, it is part of the portrayal
of Caesar as a prescient general.
Also the next mentioned thought, depending on consilia inibat, has a dou-
ble function. It is a prolepsis, notifying the narratee that Caesar will soon leave
Gergovia. At the same time, this prolepsis is a frame that affects the interpre-
tation of the events narrated in the next capita. In these capita, Caesar loses
a battle at Gergovia and leaves the city without conquering it. The mentioned
thought depending on consilia inibat shows that his departure is not a sign of
defeat but a step in the larger plan that Caesar had all along. It is significant
that the narrator refers back to this thought at the end of the battle of Gergovia
(Caes. Gall. 7.53.1: eadem de profectione cogitans).
Caesar wants to leave Gergovia without giving the impression that it is a
flight caused by fear. Therefore, he decides to perform one more, small, attack.
He explains his plans to his lieutenant-generals. The actual details of Caesar’s
plan are left out, as the speech as a whole takes the form of a mentioned speech
(ostendit quid fieri velit). The narrator highlights two parts of the speech, by
presenting them indirectly. Caesar warns his lieutenant-generals to keep con-
trol over their soldiers (monet) and explains that the location is disadvanta-
geous if they would fight longer (proponit):
Caes. Gall. 7.45.7-10

Vacua castra hostium Caesar conspicatus tectis insignibus suorum oc-
cultatisque signis militaribus raros milites, ne ex oppido animadverter-
entur, ex maioribus castris in minora traducit legatisque, quos singulis

206 chapter 4
legionibus praefecerat, quid fieri velit ostendit: in primis monet ut con-

tineant milites, ne studio pugnandi aut spe praedae longius progrediantur;
quid iniquitas loci habeat incommodi proponit: hoc una celeritate posse
mutari; occasionis esse rem, non proeli. His rebus expositis signum dat et
ab dextra parte alio ascensu eodem tempore Aeduos mittit.
When Caesar saw that the enemy’s camp was empty, covering the badges
of his men and concealing the war-standards, he moved soldiers from the
greater to the lesser camp in small parties so as not to attract attention
from the town. He showed the lieutenant-generals whom he had put in
command of each legion what he wished to be done: first and foremost
he instructed them to keep the troops in hand, lest in the zeal for battle or
the hope of booty they might advance too far. He explained the disadvan-
tage caused by the inequality of the ground, and said that this could be
remedied by speed alone; that it was a question of surprise, not of battle.
After these explanations he gave the signal, and started the Haeduans at
the same moment by another ascent, on the right side.
This speech gives the impression that Caesar knew what he was doing and had
a well-defined goal, although it remains unclear what this goal is, even during
the fight.146 The speech is presented as a partitioned speech, here suggesting
that a longer speech was given but that only a few points are presented. Thus,
the form of the speech takes away the attention of Caesar’s exact plans, while
emphasising that he knew what complications could appear.
This seems to be a specific strategy of the narrator.147 Caesar here warns
his lieutenant-generals that two complications might occur. Then, when the
events unfold during the battle scene, these complications indeed occur (e.g.
Caes. Gall. 7.47.3). Lastly, when the battle is lost, Caesar reprimands his sol-
diers on exactly these points (Caes. Gall. 7.52-53.1). The separate parts of the
speech, depending on monet and proponit, make it easier for the narratee to
remember that Caesar warned his men on two particular aspects of the battle.
After Caesar’s sign, the troops soon take several camps of the enemy po-
sitioned before the walls of Gergovia. The narrator then states that Cae-
sar reached his goal, without making explicit what this goal was exactly, as
Kraner et al. point out.148 The narrator merely says consecutus id, quod in animo
146 As Kraner et al. 1961: ad loc. point out, the narrator leaves unsaid what exactly Caesar had
in mind. Even when Caesar, apparently, has reached his goal,
147 Choitz 2011.
148 Kraner et al. 1961: ad loc.

proposuerat (Caes. Gall. 7.47.1). It has been argued that Caesar was planning
to take Gergovia, but (obviously) failed to do so. If this is indeed the case, his
narrator has given a great spin on these events.149
This already becomes clear in the next sentences in which the narrator tells
that, as Caesar had foreseen, the troops just do not want to stop fighting:
Caes. Gall. 7.47.3

sed elati spe celeris victoriae et hostium fuga superiorumque temporum
secundis proeliis nihil adeo arduum sibi existimabant, quod non virtute
consequi possent, neque finem prius sequendi fecerunt quam muro
oppidi portisque adpropinquarent.
Elated, however, by the hope of a speedy victory, by the flight of the

enemy, and their successful engagements on previous occasions, they
thought that nothing was so difficult as to be unattainable by their valour,
and they did not make an end of pursuing until they neared the wall and
the gates of the town.
The indirect thought depending on existimabant is an example of a collective

sentiment. It is on the basis of this collective sentiment that the Romans take
action.
The narrative of Bellum Gallicum contains 33 collective sentiments of non
-Roman groups, whereas it contains only 8 collective sentiments of Roman
groups. I explain this difference from the fact that, in the case of Roman collec-
tives, Caesar usually is the one who forms an opinion and decides what action
is appropriate. This particular collective sentiment shows a group of Romans
who act against the decisions of Caesar, not because they want to disobey
them, but because, as the narrator has already told us, they are ‘elated by the
hope of a speedy victory’.
The battle now has been moved to the city walls, causing great anxiety in the
city. While the Romans are storming the walls, the inhabitants of Gergovia are
under the impression that the city has been taken already. The narrator then
singles out an individual centurion, Lucius Fabius. The narrator introduces this
character here into his story and inserts short subordinate story to tell that Lu-
cius Fabius had been planning beforehand to attack the walls of Gergovia. The
story is presented as an indirect speech, depending on constabat:
149 I will not go into the question whether this, in fact, was Caesar’s plan but will keep to the
story as it is presented. For a discussion of the structure of the episode of the battle of
Gergovia, see e.g. Choitz 2011.

208 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 7.47.7

Lucius Fabius, centurio legionis viii, quem inter suos eo die dixisse constabat
excitari se Avaricensibus praemiis neque commissurum, ut prius quisquam
murum ascenderet, tres suos nactus manipulares atque ab eis sublevatus
murum ascendit: hos ipse rursus singulos exceptans in murum extulit.
Lucius Fabius, a centurion of the Eighth Legion, who was known to have
said that day among his company that he was spurred on by the rewards at
Avaricum, and would allow no one to mount the wall before him, got three
men of his company, was lifted up by them, and mounted the wall. Then
he in turn took hold of them one by one and pulled them up on to the wall.
The use of a reported narrator to embed an analepsis is uncommon in this

corpus, particularly because subordinate stories themselves are uncommon.150
The analeptic subordinate story depending on constabat seems to have a char-
acterising function, portraying Lucius Fabius in a negative manner.151 The brief
analepsis shows that Lucius Fabius had been planning to disobey the com-
mands beforehand, spurred on by the rewards at the battle of Bourges. This
means that Lucius Fabius’ behavior could not be excused because he was
blinded by the excitement of the moment. By adding this story or rumour
about the egotistical intentions of Lucius Fabius, the narrator completely
passes over the courageousness of Fabius’ action, turning it into a self-centred
act by which he endangered others. Lucius Fabius will return once more, in
Caes. Gall. 7.50.3.
The battle continues and, for a while, there seems to be no time for speech.
The narrator does take the time to insert an insight of Caesar into his story:
Caes. Gall. 7.49.1

Caesar cum iniquo loco pugnari hostium que augeri copias videret, …
150 The narrator of Bellum Gallicum prefers to keep to one, ever progressive story line and
does not embed many prolepses or analepses. The only similar case seem to be Caes.
Gall. 1.43.4 (neque abest supicio). For the presentation of the story of Bellum Gallicum, see
Stienaers (in prep.).
151 The use of the imperfect tense constabat needs further elaboration as reported narrators
tend to be embedded in clauses stated in actual present tense forms such as ferunt, dicitur
or constat. The use of the imperfect tense constabat rather than constat shows that this re-
ported narrator is not a reported narrator on the level of the narrator but one that comes
from inside the story world. That is, the imperfect tense indicates that this rumour went
round in the past, i.e. within the boundaries of the story world.

Caesar, when he saw that the battle was being fought on unfavourable
ground and that the strength of the enemy was increasing, …
The first part of Caesar’s warning in Caes. Gall. 7.45.9 had already became true
when the troops continued fighting and now, by means of this observation of
Caesar, we hear that he was also right in his second warning, concerning the
iniquum locum. Caesar takes action and the battle continues.
The narrator singles out two centurions in this phase of the battle. The first
is Lucius Fabius. After his unwise and egotistical behaviour, it comes as no sur-
prise that Lucius Fabius, as well as his companions, die in the attack (Caes.
Gall. 7.50.3). Fabius’ behaviour is contrasted with that of another centurion,
Marcus Petronius. Petronius had also endangered himself and his men but rea-
lises his mistake and saves his men with his own life. He even explicitly tells his
soldiers that he made a mistake and orders them to get back to their legions.
His speeches are presented directly:

Marcus Petronius, eiusdem legionis centurio, cum portam excidere co-
natus esset, a multitudine oppressus ac sibi desperans multis iam vul-
neribus acceptis manipularibus suis, qui illum secuti erant, “Quoniam,”
inquit, “me una vobiscum servare non possum, vestrae quidem certe vitae
prospiciam, quos cupiditate gloriae adductus in periculum deduxi. Vos data
facultate vobis consulite.” Simul in medios hostes irrupit duobusque inter-
fectis reliquos a porta paulum summovit. Conantibus auxiliari suis “Frus-
tra,” inquit, “meae vitae subvenire conamini, quem iam sanguis viresque
deficiunt. Proinde abite, dum est facultas, vosque ad legionem recipite.” Ita
pugnans post paulum concidit ac suis saluti fuit.
Marcus Petronius, a centurion of the same legion, had tried to cut down
a gate, but was overpowered by superior numbers and in desperate case.
Already he had received many wounds, and he cried to the men of his
company who had followed him: “As I cannot save myself with you, I will
at any rate provide for your life, whom in the eager desire for glory I have
brought into danger. When the chance is given do you look after your-
selves.” With this he burst into the midst of the enemy, and by slaying
two shifted the rest a little from the gate. When his men tried to assist
him he said: “In vain do you try to rescue my life, for blood and strength
are already failing me. Wherefore depart while you have a chance and
get you back to the legion.” So, a moment later, he fell fighting and saved
his men.

210 chapter 4
The use of the personal pronouns ego and vos in these speeches forcefully bring
about the contrast between Marcus, for whom all is lost, and his men, who
can still save themselves. This contrast is emphasized by the choice for direct
speech rather than indirect speech in which se and eos would have been used.
The direct speeches also invite the narratee to draw a certain conclusion,
which has to be that Caesar had been right when he warned his men (Caes.
Gall. 7.45) to keep the troops from approaching the city of Gergovia.152 Thus,
the speech confirms an earlier narratological seed. The form of the speech al-
lows the narrator to withdraw himself from this process. The responsibility for
the speech and, thus, for Marcus admitting his mistake is completely handed
over to the character of Marcus himself.
Apart from the conclusion that Caesar had been right all along, the narratee
can also conclude from the direct speeches that the centurion was very cou-
rageous and that his men were ready to sacrifice themselves for him. The last
conclusion can be drawn from the fact that Marcus Petronius has to repeat his
command to leave him behind. Apparently, the soldiers were brave until the
end and needed two speeches to convince them to give up their centurion. The
scene and especially the speeches show that it was, at least, not due to a lack of
bravery that the Romans lost the battle.153 In addition, we may conclude from
Marcus’ speech and behaviour that Roman army men knew the possible cost
of war and were ready to pay it.
The insight of Marcus Petronius combined with his deed of bravery seems
to be the most ‘positive’ note on which the narrator could end the rendering of
the battle before he turns to its outcome. In the next lines, the account of the
battle at Gergovia draws to a close and the narrator tells that 46 centurions and
about 700 soldiers were lost.
The next day, Caesar speaks to his troops and reproaches them for their be-
haviour. The narrator explicitly structures Caesar’s reprimand by presenting it
as a partitioned speech consisting of three parts.
Caes. Gall. 7.52-53.1

Postero die Caesar contione advocata temeritatem cupiditatemque mil-
itum reprehendit, quod sibi ipsi iudicavissent quo procedendum aut quid
agendum videretur, neque signo recipiendi dato constitissent neque ab tri-
bunis militum legatisque retineri potuissent. Exposuit quid iniquitas loci
152 Vercingetorix’ and Litaviccus’ direct speeches (Caes. Gall. 7.20.8-12 and 7.38.6-10), too,
invited the narratees to reach a conclusion that was not (or only later) made explicit by
the narrator.
153 Rasmussen 1963: 45.

posset, quid ipse ad Avaricum sensisset, cum sine duce et sine equitatu depre-
hensis hostibus exploratam victoriam dimisisset, ne parvum modo detrimen-
tum in contentione propter iniquitatem loci accideret. Quanto opere eorum
animi magnitudinem admiraretur, quos non castrorum munitiones, non
altitudo montis, non murus oppidi tardare potuisset, tanto opere licentiam
arrogantiamque reprehendere, quod plus se quam imperatorem de v ictoria
atque exitu rerum sentire existimarent; nec minus se ab milite modestiam et
continentiam quam virtutem atque animi magnitudinem desiderare.
Hac habita contione et ad extremam orationem confirmatis militibus,

ne ob hanc causam animo permoverentur neu quod iniquitas loci attulisset
id virtuti hostium tribuerent, || eadem de profectione cogitans quae ante
senserat legiones ex castris eduxit aciemque idoneo loco constituit.
On the morrow Caesar called a parade and reprimanded the troops for
their recklessness and headstrong passion; he said that they had decided
for themselves whither they should advance or what they should do, that
they had not halted when the signal for retirement was given, and that
they had not been amenable to the restraint of tribunes and lieuten-
ant-generals. He showed what might be the effect of unfavourable ground,
what he himself had borne in mind at Avaricum, when, though he had
caught the enemy without general and without cavalry, he had given up
an assured victory in order that even slight loss in action might not be
caused by unfavourable ground; that, greatly as he admired the high cour-
age of men whom no camp fortifications, no mountain-height, no town-
wall had been able to check, he blamed as greatly their indiscipline and
presumption in supposing that they had a truer instinct than the com-
mander-in-chief for victory and the final result; that he required from his
soldiers discipline and self-restraint no less than valour and high courage.
After delivering this harangue, and at the end thereof encouraging the
troops not to be cast down on this account, nor to attribute to the courage
of the enemy a result caused by unfavourable ground, though he was still
minded, as he had been before, to march off, he led the legions out of
camp and formed line-of-battle on suitable ground.
The three verbs (reprehendit, exposuit, confirmatis) present the speech as a

chain of three subsequent events (reprimanding, explaining, consoling). The
first two parts refer back to Caesar’s speech in Caes. Gall. 7.43.4-5 as they make
explicit that two things went wrong during the preceding battle. These two

212 chapter 4
things are exactly the complications that Caesar had foreseen: the soldiers did
not obey their leaders in their enthusiasm to fight and they fought in an un-
equal situation.154 Most attention is given to the second part of the speech, in
which Caesar takes the opportunity to refer back to another, more successful
battle, viz. the battle of Bourges. Next, he presents his praise (quanto opere) in
a direct relation to his reproach (tanto opere ...).
The narrator then concludes the speech by means of hac habita contione.
However, Caesar is not yet finished speaking, as he tries to console his men
(confirmatis). This consolation is not given much attention, being presented in
an absolute ablative. The whole sentence seems rather packed with informa-
tion of which the final actions eduxit and constituit are given most attention.
Caesar moves on but not before the narrator has referred back one more time:
eadem de profectione cogitans quae ante senserat is a reference to Caes. Gall.
7.43.4-5 in which Caesar started planning to leave Gergovia, without suggest-
ing that he was fleeing the city.
We cannot know how Caesar’s departure from Gergovia was conceived by
the Gauls or, for that matter, by the Romans themselves (both in Gaul and in
Rome). The analysis of the presentation of the speeches and thoughts in the
Gergovia episode does show how the narrator carefully builds the image that
Caesar did not flee from Gergovia after a lost battle. Whatever really happened,
the narratees of this story get the impression that 1) Caesar did not flee Ger-
govia but deliberately moved on to cope with bigger problems concerning the
whole of Gaul and that 2) Caesar did not lose the battle of Gergovia but that
due to overeager men and an unequal situation he lost a fight that was meant
to be just a small attack on some of his opponents.
4.3.10 The Haeduans, Part 4, Caes. Gall. 7.54.1-56.3

When Caesar has reached the river Allier and stays there overnight, the Haed-
uans Viridomarus and Eporedorix come to speak to him. The scene presents
their conversation with Caesar, after which they almost immediately betray
the Romans. The conversation between Caesar and these young Haeduans
seems to prepare for this betrayal, especially by means of indirectly presented
thoughts of Caesar. In sum, speeches and thoughts make up about 41% of the
episode.155 Given that Caesar is marching his troops to a new destination (cf.
154 Kraus 2010a points out the similarities and differences between this speech and that of
Vercingetorix after the battle of Bourges. Both Vercingetorix and Caesar point out that
they had planned otherwise. Caesar is tougher on his men than Vercingetorix, however.
Kraus 2010a suggests that this might be an indication of Caesar’s greater realism.

pontem refecit exercitumque traduxit, Caes. Gall.7.53.4), this is a relatively large

amount of speech and thought.
Viridomarus and Eporedorix tell Caesar that Litaviccus is trying to diminish
the loyalty of the Haeduans. They want to leave Caesar and try to keep their
people loyal to the Romans. Caesar does not believe them, as we can glean
from his deliberations.

Etsi multis iam rebus perfidiam Aeduorum perspectam habebat atque
horum discessu admaturari defectionem civitatis existimabat, tamen eos
retinendos non constituit, ne aut inferre iniuriam videretur aut dare
timoris aliquam suspicionem.
Caesar already had abundant evidence to prove the treachery of the Haed-
uans, and he believed that the departure of these two served but to hasten
a revolt of the state; however, he determined not to detain them, lest he
might seem to be inflicting an injury or affording some suspicion of fear.
Caesar does not want to suggest that he keeps the Haeduans against their will
and, therefore, chooses to do what he thinks is the lesser of two wrongs. The
complement of existimabat is particularly interesting in this excerpt. It shows,
again, that Caesar generally very aptly predicts adversities, in this case the de-
fectio Haeduorum. Moreover, the use of the verb admaturari very subtly sug-
gests that this defection was something that could not be stopped. It implies
that the defectio could only be sped up or slowed down but that preventing it
from happening was not an option.
In one last attempt to keep their loyalty, Caesar reminds Viridomarus and
Eporedorix of what the Romans had done for their people:

Discedentibus his breviter sua in Aeduos merita exposuit, quos et quam
humiles accepisset, compulsos in oppida, multatos agris omnibus ereptis
copiis, imposito stipendio, obsidibus summa cum contumelia extortis, et
quam in fortunam quamque in amplitudinem deduxisset, ut non solum in
pristinum statum redissent, sed omnium temporum dignitatem et gratiam
antecessisse viderentur. His datis mandatis eos ab se dimisit.
As they departed he set forth briefly his own services to the Haeduans:
their position, their humiliations at the time when he had received
them—crowded into towns, deprived of fields, all their resources

214 chapter 4
plundered, a tribute imposed, hostages wrung from them with the utmost
insolence—the success and the distinction to which he had brought them,
with the result that they had not only returned to their ancient position,
but, to all appearance, had surpassed the dignity and influence of all pre-
vious ages. With these monitions he dismissed them from his presence.
This indirect speech is rather lengthy.156 In addition, it contains information

that is known to the narratees. This feature of a speech tends to coincide with a
presentation as a report of a speech or as a (very) short indirect speech. More-
over, the addressees in the story world, Viridomarus and Eporedorix, are famil-
iar with the content of this speech as well. The speech, therefore, is presented
in a remarkable form. The narrator does not restrict himself to the mentioned
speech sua in Aeduos merita exposuit but (partly) gives the floor to Caesar to
elaborate on these merita in an indirectly presented speech. The speech starts
with a long, asyndetic enumeration of the sorrows of the Haeduans before the
Romans came (compulsos – extortis). Their sorrows are then contrasted with
their better situation now. Caesar and Rome have meant a lot to the Haeduans
and Caesar has strained every nerve to keep their loyalty. That is the message to
Eporedorix and Viridomarus and, more importantly, to the narratees.157
Viridomarus and Eporedorix do not listen to this message. As soon as the
opportunity presents itself, they kill several Roman citizens and switch over to
Vercingetorix’ side (Caes. Gall. 7.56). The farewell speech by Caesar immedi-
ately preceded their betrayal and emphasizes their ingratitude, making their
horrible actions even more despicable. The emphasis on the betrayal of these
individual Haeduans fits in with the strategy we have already encountered in
Caesar’s treatment of Convictolitavis in Caes. Gall. 7.32-37 and Litaviccus in
Caes. Gall. 7.38. The narrator tries to reduce the treason of a whole tribe to acts
of treacherous individuals.158
When Caesar hears about the treason of Viridomarus and Eporedorix, he
decides to make haste. He cannot return to the Province, because of the shame
that would bring and because of the impeding Cevennes.159 Moreover, he
156 Cf. Caes. Gall. 7.71.3 in which the narrator merely states that Vercingetorix reminded his
men of what he had done for them, without further elaboration (sua in illos merita proponit).
157 Cf. Rambaud 1966: 317.
158 Barlow 1998: 154.
159 The Latin sentence in which this is narrated is a candidate for an interpretation as free indi-
rect thought: infamia atque indignitas rei et oppositus mons Cevenna viarum que difficultas
impediebat (Caes. Gall. 7.56.2). Translation: “there was the shame and disgrace of the thing,
as well as the barrier of the Cevennes and the difficulty of the roads, to prevent it.”

worries about Labienus who has been sent away on a different mission. Caesar
moves to the Loire and then to the territory of the Senones.
4.3.11 Labienus, Caes. Gall. 7.57-62

The efforts of Labienus to reach Paris are narrated in five chapters, presenting
many of his speeches and thoughts. Apart from Caesar, Labienus is the only
Roman individual of whom speeches and thoughts of considerable length are
presented. This is due to these chapters in which he seems to take Caesar’s
place in the narrative. In sum, speeches and thoughts make up about 31% of
the episode.160
On his way to Paris, Labienus is hindered by the Gauls. After trying several
routes, he finally reaches Paris. When the Gauls have set up their camp facing
that of Labienus, news and (false) rumours about Caesar’s difficulties spread.161
Labienus, functioning as Caesar’s replacement, then needs to consider the sit-
uation and take a decision. The narrator inserts a series of deliberations and
thoughts before a decision is taken, just as he does at several occasions at
which Caesar makes decisions.162

tum Labienus tanta rerum commutatione longe aliud sibi capiendum con-
silium, atque antea senserat, intellegebat neque iam, ut aliquid adquireret
proelio que hostes lacesseret, sed ut incolumem exercitum Agedincum re-
duceret, cogitabat. namque altera ex parte Bellovaci, quae civitas in Gal-
lia maximam habet opinionem virtutis, instabant, alteram Camulogenus
parato atque instructo exercitu tenebat. tum legiones a praesidio atque
impedimentis interclusas maximum flumen distinebat. tantis subito dif-
ficultatibus obiectis ab animi virtute auxilium petendum videbat.
With the case so completely altered, Labienus perceived that he must

adopt a course quite different from his previous design, and he began
now to consider the means, not of further acquisition or of provoking the
enemy to fight, but of bringing the army safely back to Agedincum. For the
Bellovaci, the state which has the greatest reputation for courage in Gaul,
were pressing upon him from one side, while the ground on the other was
held by Camulogenus with an army regularly equipped and organized;

161 The narrator inserts several mentioned speeches and a short indirect speech in which he
indicates the contents of these rumors (Caes. Gall. 7.59.1-2).
162 For other cases see my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-34.1.

216 chapter 4
and further, the legions were cut off from their baggage and its guard with
a mighty river between. Confronted suddenly with these s upreme diffi-
culties, he saw that he must have recourse to personal courage.
Labienus’ deliberations are presented in four steps, three indirect thoughts

and one, somewhat longer, candidate for free indirect thought. First, Labienus
shows insight into the altered situation and realises that he has to change his
plan drastically (longe aliud). In this indirect thought, the narrator comes in
between in the relative clause ante senserat. Second, Labienus formulates
the exact change of plan that is necessary; his new goal should be to arrive
safely at Sens. The reasons for this are several difficult circumstances, intro-
duced into the text with nam. These circumstances are presented in indicative
forms of the imperfect (instabant, tenebat, distinebat) and leave room for an
interpretation as free indirect thought. Only the relative clause containing the
present tense form habet is clearly the responsibility of the narrator alone, the
other sentences contain observation of both the narrator and Labienus. They
describe circumstances that Labienus took into consideration and that are
summarized in the clause tantis difficultatibus obiectis. This word group may
or may not be part of the indirect thought depending on videbat. In any case,
Labienius’ conclusion is that only their courage can help them.
The primary narrator’s analysis of the situation and Labienus’ line of thought
are closely connected in this excerpt. For instance, the boundaries of the first
and last indirect thought (depending on intellegebat and videbat) are not clear-
cut because in both cases the adverbial clause starting with a form of tantus
could be part of Labienus’ thoughts and of the narrator text. Of course, the
boundaries between Labienus’ words and narrator text are even more fuzzy
in the sentences that could be interpreted as free indirect thought. Labienus is
the replacement of Caesar and makes the decisions here, but the narrator uses
his own authority by presenting the decisive circumstances in the indicative
mood. The narrator, thus, seems to endorse Labienus and prepares the narra-
tees for Labienus’ next, rather bold, moves.
Labienus faces the enemy and fights a battle. Before this battle he gives an
exhortatory speech that, at the level of the narratee, functions as an indirect
praise of Caesar.
Caes. Gall. 7.62.2

Labienus milites cohortatus, ut suae pristinae virtutis et tot secundissimo-
rum proeliorum retinerent memoriam atque ipsum Caesarem, cuius saep-
enumero hostes superassent, praesentem adesse existimarent, dat signum
proelii.

Labienus urged the troops to remember well their own courage in the
past and the brilliant success of their battles, and to think that Caesar
himself, under whose leadership they had often overcome the enemy,
was present to see them; then he gave the signal for action.
The main incitement of Labienus is that the troops have to pretend that Caesar
is there, thus suggesting that he is their true and most inspiring leader. Espe-
cially the relative clause, containing the mimetic element saepenumero, is flat-
tering for Caesar. Labienus acts as Caesar’s replacement in this episode and is
portrayed accordingly (see the partitioned thoughts above) but at this crucial
moment Caesar himself is the person necessary to incite the troops. Labienus
wins the battle, reaches Sens and from there travels to Caesar.
4.3.12 Prelude to the Battle of Alesia, Caes. Gall. 7.63-67

The prelude to the battle of Alesia is narrated in five chapters, presenting prep-
arations and marches on both sides. In sum, speeches and thoughts make up
about 31% of the episode.163 These are speeches and thoughts inserted in the
presentation of a convention of Gauls to decide upon supreme command, but
also, for instance, a rather lengthy indirectly presented speech by Vercingetorix
preceding a cavalry battle.
After their defectio, the Haeduans had high hopes of obtaining the supreme
command over the Gallic tribes. At the convention of many Gallic tribes, how-
ever, they learn that the supreme command will not be given to them but that
Vercingetorix is approved unanimously as commander in chief. The Haeduans
then, just after their revolt, realise how kind Caesar had always been to them and,
in several collective sentiments, they regret their decision and lament their fate.

Magno dolore Haeduans ferunt se deiectos principatu, queruntur fortunae
commutationem et Caesaris indulgentiam in se requirunt, neque tamen
suscepto bello suum consilium ab reliquis separare audent. Inviti sum-
mae spei adulescentes Eporedorix et Viridomarus Vercingetorigi parent.
The Haeduans were greatly distressed at their rejection from the leadership,
complaining of the change in their fortune and feeling the loss of Caesar’s
kindness towards them; but nevertheless, having undertaken the campaign,
they durst not part counsel from the rest. Unwillingly, for they were young
and very ambitious, Eporedorix and Viridomarus obeyed Vercingetorix.
163 The episode contains 227 in speeches and thoughts, out of 733 words.

218 chapter 4
Specific attention is given to Eporedorix and Viridomarus, who were the last
Haeduans to cross over. The attributive adjunct adulescentes seems added to
their names to present their treason as a forgivable act of naive youngsters. By
mentioning them explicitly the narrator refers back to the passage in which
Caesar spoke to them for the last time (Caes. Gall. 7.54.2-4). In this last speech,
Caesar indeed showed them his indulgence by letting them go, after mention-
ing all the benefits the Haeduans received from him and the Romans.
The defectio Haeduorum was a problem for the narrator since it did not look
good that Caesar could not keep the Haeduans on his side.164 The term defectio
is used five times in Bellum Gallicum to refer to the change in loyalty of the
Haeduans.165 The word is used two times before the actual change in loyalty
happens, both times in considerations of Caesar. The narrator uses the term
defectio to present this event as a negative event. A more neutral term would
have been transitio.166 As Barlow observes, the narrator could not ignore the
presence of high-ranking Haeduans among the enemy but he does do his best
to control the damage to Caesar’s image.167 He does so, for instance, by means
of Caesar’s anticipation of the defectio (Caes. Gall. 7.43.5, Caes. Gall. 7.54.2).
The collective sentiment of regret in Caes. Gall. 7.63.8-9 is another example of
this damage control. For now, it concludes the episode about the Haeduans.
The narrator will return to them by singling out individual Haeduan captives
in Caes. Gall. 7.67.7. At the end of book 7, finally, Caesar shows his indulgence
to the Haeduans again after the battle of Alesia and keeps them (and the Arv-
erni) apart while distributing the prisoners over his men (Caes. Gall. 7.89-90).
Vercingetorix thus receives supreme command of almost all Gallic tribes
at the Gallic convention in Caes. Gall. 7.63. He acts accordingly. Vercingetorix
immediately gives several commands and explains his main strategy in an in-
direct speech (Caes. Gall. 7.64.2). Again, as in Caes. Gall. 7.14, Vercingetorix
urges the Gauls to burn their properties. Several commands and decisions fol-
low from which it becomes clear that Vercingetorix takes no half measures.
Now that Vercingetorix has been given power, he knows how to use it. His
authority is underscored by the representations of speech and thought in this
part of the narrative. In the presentation of the next episode, a lengthy indirect
164 Rambaud 1966: 312.

165 Caes. Gall. 7.43.5; 7.54.2; 7.59.1; 7.59.2; 7.61.4; 7.63.1.
166 Cf. Livius AUC 22.43.3 on Spanish mercenaries in Hannibal’s army: mercennarios mili-
tes, maxime Hispani generis, de transitione cepisse consilium fama esset. Translation:
“and when the report went round that the mercenaries—particularly those of Spanish
blood—had resolved on going over to the enemy;”
167 Barlow 1998: 154.

speech highlights two further characteristics, to wit his rabble rousing tech-
niques and his strategical skills. The speech precedes a cavalry battle, largely
presented from the perspective of the Gauls. The elaborate speech contributes
to building up the narrative tension raising questions in the narratees. First,
the narratees learn from it that Vercingetorix exaggerates the situation on the
Roman side.168

magno horum coacto numero, cum Caesar in Sequanos per extremos Lin-
gonum fines iter faceret, quo facilius subsidium provinciae ferri posset,
circiter milia passuum x ab Romanis trinis castris Vercingetorix consedit
convocatis que ad concilium praefectis equitum venisse tempus victoriae
demonstrat. fugere in provinciam Romanos Gallia que excedere.
While Caesar was marching to the country of the Sequani across the out-
ermost borders of the Lingones, so as to be able to lend support more
easily to the Province, Vercingetorix got together a great number of these
contingents and established himself in three camps about ten miles from
the Romans. He called the cavalry commanders together to a council of
war, and stated that the hour of victory was come. He said that the Ro-
mans were fleeing to the Province and leaving Gaul.
In the adverbial clause starting with cum the narrator states that Caesar
went to the territory of the Sequanians, a fact that contradicts, beforehand,
Vercingetorix claims that the Romans are fleeing to their own province. Ver
cingetorix continues to explain that they need to take further action to de-
feat the Romans once and for all (Caes. Gall. 7.66.4). He suggests attacking
their column. In Vercingetorix’ view, two scenarios are possible: the march
is either stopped or the Romans are stripped of their necessities and their
reputations (Caes. Gall. 7.66.5). This part of the speech creates considerable
narrative tension. It seems likely, even at this point in the speech, that the
Gallic cavalry will pursue this action. The narratee should already ask them-
selves which of these scenarios will come true, or what other scenario might
be possible.
In the next part of his speech, Vercingetorix is particularly negative about
the Roman cavalry:

220 chapter 4
Caes. Gall. 7.66.6

nam de equitibus hostium, quin nemo eorum progredi modo extra agmen
audeat, ne ipsos quidem debere dubitare. id quo maiore faciant animo, co-
pias se omnes pro castris habiturum et terrori hostibus futurum.
[he said] that, as touching the enemy’s cavalry, they themselves, at any
rate, ought to have no doubt that not a man of them would dare even to
advance beyond the column; and that, further, to make the commanders
act with more spirit, he would have all his force paraded in front of the
camp and strike terror into the enemy.
Vercingetorix presents it as a fact that the Roman cavalry will not react to the
attack of the Gallic cavalry. Although the speech as a whole contains several ele-
ments deriving from Vercingetorix’ deictic centre (e.g enim, proinde), this excerpt
contains the most obvious one: the use of hostes to refer to the Romans.169 The
negative opinion is thus rather explicitly presented from the point of view of
Vercingetorix, which makes it clear that he is the one responsible for this opinion.
The Gallic cavalry shows much excitement and brashness in their reaction,
illustrating the effect and power of Vercingetorix’ rhetoric.
Caes. Gall. 7.66.7

conclamant equites sanctissimo iure iurando confirmari oportere, ne tecto
recipiatur, ne ad liberos, ad parentes, ad uxorem aditum habeat, qui non bis
per agmen hostium perequitarit.
The horsemen shouted with one accord that they should be bound by a
most solemn oath—that no man should be received beneath a roof, nor
have access to children, or to parents, or to wife, who had not twice rid-
den through the enemy’s column.
Especially the emphatic tricolon ne ad liberos, ad parentes, ad uxores empha-

sizes the cavalry’s willingness to attack the Roman column with all their might.
All this seems a rather threatening situation for the Roman column. The
inciting speech and the reaction of the cavalry have brought the narrative ten-
sion to a point at which a climax is soon expected, especially when the cavalry
starts executing their plans the next day, dividing into three parts to attack the
column from three sides.
169 Note that in the first part of the speech the neutral reference Romanos was used.

The carefully built up narrative tension then completely collapses. Ver

cingetorix had been completely wrong. Caesar receives intelligence on his
actions (qua re nuntiata) and in one simple clause Caesar counters his attack.
He, too, divides his cavalry into three parts.

qua re nuntiata Caesar suum quoque equitatum tripertito divisum con-
tra hostem ire iubet. pugnatur una omnibus in partibus. consistit agmen;
impedimenta inter legiones recipiuntur.
On report of this Caesar divided his own cavalry likewise into three, and
ordered it to advance against the enemy. The battle began simultane-
ously in every quarter. The column halted, and the baggage was drawn
back inside the legions.
Vercingetorix expected that the Romans would be cut off from their baggage
and the Gallic cavalry expected that they could cross the Roman column, per-
haps even twice. They are proven wrong by events: the Roman cavalry protects
the column on all necessary sides and crossing it is impossible. The baggage is,
in one smooth operation, brought to its centre and thus protected.
The deflation of narrative tension is very effective in bringing about the con-
trast between the brashness of the Gauls and the simple, well-organized proce-
dures performed by Caesar and his army. Eventually, it is the Gallic cavalry that
flees (Caes. Gall. 7.68.1 fugato omni equitatu) and Vercingetorix has to retreat
to Alesia, deprived of his cavalry.170
All in all, the actions of this cavalry battle are not given as much attention
as the three major battles in book 7. According to Kraus the attention on the
battles of Bourges, Gergovia and Alesia results in the downplay of this battle.171
In the narrative of book 7, the tripartite division into three battles, narrating
subsequently a victory, a defeat and a decisive last victory has a strong rhetori-
cal effect. In order to maintain this effect, the victorious cavalry battle in Caes.
Gall. 7.67-8 could not be given a lot of attention, although it is this cavalry
battle that forces Vercingetorix to retreat to Alesia, resulting in his downfall
(Kraus 2010a).
In addition to Kraus’ observations, I would also like to emphasize the de-
flation of the narrative tension in this episode, evoked by the contrasting ef-
fect between the attention that is given to Vercingetorix’ speech and the battle
170 The narrator subtly points this out in Caes. Gall. 7.68.3.
171 Kraus 2010a.

222 chapter 4
itself. The speech evokes the expectation of a difficult battle that would se-
verely damage the Romans, but the presentation of the actions suggests that
the Romans answered the attack routinely. I would say that the episode func-
tions as a prelude or even a foreboding of Vercingetorix’ downfall. The contrast
between Vercingetorix’ speech and the ensuing narrative shows that, here,
Vercingetorix and the Gallic cavalry overestimate their own powers and, more
importantly, underestimate the Roman cavalry, Caesar’s strategical insight and
the flawless organization of the Roman army.
Vercingetorix is characterized as an authoritative, rhetorically gifted and
strategically planning leader of all of Gaul. Despite his qualities, his strategies
cannot beat those of Caesar and the latter’s excellent access to information.
Thus, the episode of the cavalry battle and its speech and thought representa-
tions contribute to the portrayal of Caesar’s most dangerous opponent.
4.3.13 The Battle of Alesia, Caes. Gall. 7.68-90

The last episode of book 7 narrates the battle of Alesia. This battle episode con-
tains about sixty speeches and thoughts. With the exception of Critognatus’ fa-
mous and lengthy direct speech (Caes. Gall. 7.77.1-16), all speeches and thoughts
in this episode are merely reports or short indirect presentations. The indirect
speeches and thoughts in this episode are no longer than 40 words, with an av-
erage length of about 12 words. In sum, speeches and thoughts make up about
27% of the episode.172 As is the case in other battle episodes in this corpus, the
narrator seem to prefer action over speech in the account of the battle of Alesia.
The city of Alesia is introduced into the narrative in several steps. When
Vercingetorix retreats to Alesia (Caes. Gall. 7.68.1), the narrator informs his
narratees that this is the city of Mandubii (quod est oppidum Mandubiorum).
In this clause, he uses an actual present tense form, thus indicating that this
city still existed in his time. When Caesar reaches the city, he assesses the situ-
ation of the city and the enemies.
Caes. Gall. 7.68.3

Perspecto urbis situ perterritisque hostibus, quod equitatu, qua maxime
parte exercitus confidebant, erant pulsi, adhortatus ad laborem milites
circumvallare instituit.
He reconnoitred the situation of the city, and as the enemy were terror-
struck by the rout of their horsemen, the branch of their army on which
they most relied, he urged his soldiers to the task and began the investment.
172 These are 811 out of 2956 words, of which 327 are part of Critognatus’ speech.

The narrator pays the most attention to Caesar’s assessment of the enemies
and points out that the cavalry battle had severely damaged them as they were
terror-struck. Caesar exhorts his troops and starts preparations.
In the next caput, too, the perspective of Caesar is maintained. While Caesar
and the Romans work to fortify their camp (circumvallare instituit), the nar-
rator takes the time to describe the city in more detail, using Caesar’s focali-
sation to fill in perspecto urbis situ. Caesar’s focalization can be derived from,
for instance, the verb videretur of which Caesar is an implicit complement (cf.
Caesari videretur). Another indication is the use of the imperfect tense for sit-
uations that still hold in the time of narration.

Ipsum erat oppidum Alesia in colle summo admodum edito loco, ut nisi
obsidione expugnari non posse videretur; cuius collis radices duo duabus
ex partibus flumina subluebant. Ante id oppidum planities circiter milia
passuum tria in longitudinem patebat: reliquis ex omnibus partibus
colles mediocri interiecto spatio pari altitudinis fastigio oppidum cinge-
bant. Sub muro, quae pars collis ad orientem solem spectabat, hunc om-
nem locum copiae Gallorum compleverant fossamque et maceriam sex
in altitudinem pedum praeduxerant. Eius munitionis quae ab Romanis
instituebatur circuitus XI milia passuum tenebat.
The actual stronghold of Alesia was set atop of a hill, in a very lofty situa-
tion, apparently impregnable save by blockade. The bases of the hill were
washed on two separate sides by rivers. Before the town a plain extended
for a length of about three miles; on all the other sides there were hills
surrounding the town at a short distance, and equal to it in height. Un-
der the wall, on the side which looked eastward, the forces of the Gauls
had entirely occupied all this intervening space, and had made in front a
ditch and a rough wall six feet high.
As far as the tense forms are concerned, the narrator had a choice. The first
five indicative imperfect tense forms in this excerpt (erat, subluebant, patebat,
cingebant, spectabat) could have been present tense forms, as they describe
geographical, constant features of this city.173 By using the imperfect tense, the
narrator presents the city from the perspective of the Romans, thus maintain-
ing the flow of his narrative, whereas present tense forms would have been a
narratorial interruption. In this way, the narrator creates a smooth transition
173 Present tense forms are used for similar situations in e.g. Caes. Gall. 7.68.3.

224 chapter 4
from the general description of Alesia to the particular situations in the story
world of the moment (compleverant, praeduxerant, instituebatur, tenebat). It is
against this background that the next battle will take place.
When the siege-work has been started, a first battle is fought, causing severe
losses to Vercingetorix’ army. Vercingetorix locks himself and his troops inside
the city and realises that he has to send horsemen to ask for help. He runs the
risk, however, that these horsemen will not return, once they have reached the
safety of their own state. Therefore, he addresses these horsemen emphatically
in a speech that is presented in a partitioned fashion.

Discedentibus mandat ut suam quisque eorum civitatem adeat omnesque
qui per aetatem arma ferre possint ad bellum cogant. Sua in illos merita
proponit obtestaturque ut suae salutis rationem habeant neu se optime de
communi libertate meritum in cruciatum hostibus dedant. Quod si indili-
gentiores fuerint, milia hominum delecta octoginta una secum interitura
demonstrat. Ratione inita se exigue dierum triginta habere frumentum,
sed paulo etiam longius tolerari posse parcendo.
His parting instructions were that each of them should proceed to his
own state and impress for the campaign all men whose age allowed them
to bear arms. He set forth his own claims upon them, and adjured them
to have regard for his personal safety, and not to surrender to the torture
of the enemy one who had done sterling service for the general liberty. He
showed them that if they proved indifferent eighty thousand chosen men
were doomed to perish with him. His parting instructions were that each
of them should proceed to his own state and impress for the campaign all
men whose age allowed them to bear arms. He set forth his own claims
upon them, and adjured them to have regard for his personal safety, and
not to surrender to the torture of the enemy one who had done sterling
service for the general liberty. He showed them that if they proved in-
different eighty thousand chosen men were doomed to perish with him.
By presenting the speech in this way, the narrator emphasizes the separate
components of the speech. Apart from their function in Vercingetorix’ appeal,
the components each seem to have their own particular function in the narra-
tive. Vercingetorix demands that they gather all men that are able to fight. This
first part of his speech indicates that Vercingetorix sees this phase of the war
as the decisive phase, in which it is necessary to put everything at stake. Thus,

it foreshadows the end of this narrative.174 The part of the speech in which
Vercingetorix explains his merita is of less importance to the narrator and he
summarizes it in a mentioned speech. The next parts, in which Vercingetorix
emphasizes what could be lost, are of more importance. They present the facts
that the Gauls were fighting for general liberty (communi libertati) and that the
Romans were facing an enemy of eight thousand men.
The last part of Vercingetorix speech functions as a temporal marker for the
duration of the siege: Vercingetorix claims that he has enough food for thirty
days or perhaps just a bit longer. This claim makes clear that the narrative of
this siege will concern about thirty days, at most, and that at the end of these
thirty days, the tension will reach its peak, both in Alesia and in the narrative.
When the horsemen are gone, Vercingetorix takes the necessary precautions
in Alesia to wait for the troops from Gaul and conduct the campaign. Caesar
hears about all this and he, too, prepares for a long siege by installing several types
of entrenchments. During these construction works, speeches and thoughts are
rare, with the exception of short commands. The last command in this prepara-
tory phase is interesting because it contains a time period of thirty days, bringing
Vercingetorix’ speeches in Caes. Gall. 7.71 back to the mind of the narratees:
Caes. Gall. 7.74.3

ac ne cum periculo ex castris egredi cogatur, dierum triginta pabulum fru-
mentumque habere omnes convectum iubet.
And in order that he might not be constrained to dangerous excursions from

camp, he ordered all his men to have thirty days’ corn and forage collected.
Both Vercingetorix and Caesar are ready for a siege of about thirty days and
this raises the expectation that, once these thirty days are finished, the war will
have to be decided.
In the mean time, the narrator turns to the Gauls, who have received Ver
cingetorix’ request and have summoned a council of chiefs. They decide
against the wishes of Vercingetorix.

Dum haec ad Alesiam geruntur, Galli concilio principum indicto non
omnes qui arma ferre possent - ut censuit Vercingetorix - convocandos
174 In Caes. Gall. 7.75.1, it becomes clear that this demand of Vercingetorix will not be met
and that it is, thus, similar to his demand in Caes. Gall. 7.14 that all cities should be burnt.
Then, Bourges was not burnt, leading to a disaster for the Gauls.

226 chapter 4
statuunt, sed certum numerum cuique civitati imperandum, ne tanta mul-

titudine confusa nec moderari nec discernere suos nec frumentandi ratio-
nem habere possent.
While this was proceeding about Alesia, the Gauls summoned a coun-
cil of chiefs and determined not to call up (according to the proposal of
Vercingetorix) all who could bear arms, but to require of each chief a cer-
tain quota from his state; for they feared that with so large a host herded
together they might not be able to preserve discipline, to distinguish their
several contingents, or to secure a supply of corn.
Although they do have reasons for their decision (presented in the ne-clauses),
the Gallic chiefs do seem to underestimate the situation. As was the case with
Bourges, a city that Vercingetorix had wanted burnt (Caes. Gall. 7.14 and Caes.
Gall. 7.29), they do not listen to Vercingetorix. The narrator points this out by
means of the subordinate clause ut censuit Vercingetorix, with which he ex-
plicitly interrupts the indirectly presented decision of the chiefs. In this light,
their decision foreshadows the further course of the narrative and is a token
that the Gauls will not be able to save Alesia. The Gallic chiefs do, nevertheless,
send a great number of troops from each state and the narrator emphasizes
this by quoting the numbers in full (Caes. Gall. 7.75.2). The Gauls themselves
are full of confidence about their numbers, as becomes clear from a collective
sentiment:
Caes. Gall. 7.76.5

Omnes alacres et fiduciae pleni ad Alesiam proficiscuntur, neque erat
omnium quisquam qui aspectum modo tantae multitudinis sustineri posse
arbitraretur, praesertim ancipiti proelio, cum ex oppido eruptione pugna-
retur, foris tantae copiae equitatus peditatusque cernerentur.
Full of spirit and confidence, all started for Alesia; there was not a man of
them all who thought the mere sight of so vast a host could be withstood,
especially in a two-sided engagement, when there would be fighting with
those who made a sortie from within the town, and outside the display of
so vast an army of horse and foot.
The presentation of this sentiment is remarkable because it is negated and

presents what not even one of the Gauls thought. The negation means that the
175 De Jong 2014: 54.

narrator has taken over their focalization.175 At the same time, the indirect dis-
course is full of mimetic elements, making it a very lively presentation of this
non-sentiment. The mimetic elements modo ... praesertim, tantae multitudinis
and tantae copiae show the reasons for the fighting spirit and this confidence
of the Gauls. The Gauls have completely forgotten that Vercingetorix asked for
even larger amounts of troops.
The high spirits of the Gauls marching towards Alesia are sharply contrasted
with the emotions of the Gauls inside Alesia, presented in the next caput. They
are isolated to such an extent that they do not even know that help is on the
way. They call a council of war to consider their options. The narrator presents
several opinions existing in the city. Some inhabitants want surrender, while
others plea for a break out while they still have their strength. The narrator
gives the most attention, by far, to the opinion of Critognatus. His speech is
perhaps the most famous speech of Bellum Gallicum, due to its direct form,
remarkable length (327 words) and horrible content.176 Critognatus suggests
that cannibalism would be a solution for the lack of food supplies in Alesia.
The narrator explicitly states that he presents the speech in full b ecause of its
cruelty.

Ac variis dictis sententiis, quarum pars deditionem, pars, dum vires sup-
peterent, eruptionem censebat, non praetereunda oratio Critognati vid-
etur propter eius singularem et nefariam crudelitatem. Hic summo in
Arvernis ortus loco et magnae habitus auctoritatis, “Nihil,” inquit, “de eo-
rum sententia dicturus sum, qui turpissimam servitutem deditionis nomine
appellant, ...
Various opinions were expressed, one party voting for surrender, another
for a sortie while their strength sufficed: but the speech of Critognatus
should not, I think, be omitted, because of its remarkable and abomina-
ble cruelty. He was of high lineage among the Arverni, and considered
to have great influence. “Of their opinion,” he said, “who call a most dis-
graceful slavery by the name of surrender I purpose to say nothing;
The narrator emphasizes the determination of the Gauls, and the little value
they attach to individual lives, commenting upon the ongoing narrative. The
176 A recent discussion is presented in Tsitsiou-Chelidoni 2010: 139–145, with bibliography.

228 chapter 4
narrator intervenes to emphasize what the events he narrates are meant to

show, whereas he usually refrains from this.
The length of the ensuing speech is connected to the decrease in the pace in
this episode. More time is taken to narrate the events and, thus, there is more
space to insert long speeches.177 At the same time, the speech itself contributes
to the decrease in pace. All in all, the speech receives ample attention by the
narrator and our interpretation should take this into account.
One reason for this amount of attention could be that the narrator wants
to present this speech in a way that allows the narratee to come to the same
conclusion as he: Critognatus and other Gauls were wicked, cruel and willing
to do anything and greatly differ from Romans with respect to crudelitas.178 The
narratorial evaluation in combination with the speech itself shows how deter-
mined and, thus, how dangerous the Gauls were.179
The narrator explicitly explains that Critognatus’ speech is quoted in full
so that the narratee can see its wickedness and cruelty for himself. This nar-
ratorial statement can be used to come to better understanding of the other
instances of direct speech in this corpus.180 It corroborates the idea that also
in the case of other direct speeches this particular form is chosen so that the
narratee can come to a certain conclusion about the speech or speaking char-
acter. As I have argued above, the direct speeches of Vercingetorix (Caes. Gall.
7.20.8-12), Litaviccus (Caes. Gall. 7.38.6-10) and Marcus Petronius (Caes. Gall.
7.50.4-6) are all meant to evoke a certain conclusion. In these cases, however,
the narrator did not impose his conclusion but it was the narratees who had to
derive it from events in the surrounding narrative.
In Alesia, the Gauls decide not yet to execute Critognatus’ plan (omnia prius
experiantur, quam ad Critognati sententiam descendant, Caes. Gall. 7.78.1) but
instead to expel the weak from the city, including the Mandubii, the original
inhabitants of Alesia.181 Then, Gallic reinforcements reach Alesia and soon the
actual battle begins. During the battle, the speeches and thoughts are confined
to commands, intelligence (e.g. Caes. Gall. 7.83.1) and thoughts expressing
emotions of fear or strategical insights, often in the form of collective senti-
ments. Three collective sentiments mark the decisiveness of the battle.
177 Rasmussen 1963: 48.

179 Rasmussen 1963: 47.
180 Note, however, that similar remarks on the ‘noteworthiness’ of an occasion are made when
direct discourse does not occur (Caes. Gall. 1.42.6; 7.25.1), as Riggsby 2006: 241n54 points out.
181 Transl.: ‘every expedient should be tried before they had recourse to the counsel of Critognatus’.

Caes. Gall. 7.85.2

Vtrisque ad animum occurrit unum esse illud tempus, quo maxime con-
tendi conveniat: Galli, nisi perfregerint munitiones, de omni salute despe-
rant; Romani, si rem obtinuerint, finem laborum omnium exspectant.
Both sides felt that this was the hour of all others in which it was proper
to make their greatest effort. The Gauls utterly despaired of safety unless
they could break through the lines; the Romans anticipated an end of all
toils if they could hold their own.
The first collective sentiment in the example expresses what all troops on the
battlefield think, Gauls and Romans alike. Then, the other two sentiments spec-
ify the evaluations of both groups. These collective sentiments build up the ten-
sion of the story and prepare for the ultimate climax, the conquering of Alesia.
The upcoming climax is foreshadowed again in the next caput in which
Caesar gives a motivational speech to his troops.
Caes. Gall. 7.86.3

Ipse adit reliquos, cohortatur ne labori succumbant; omnium superiorum
dimicationum fructum in eo die atque hora docet consistere.
He himself went up to the rest of the troops, and urged them not to give
in to the strain, telling them that the fruit of all previous engagements
depended upon that day and hour.
The length of this speech as it is represented in the narrative is a mere thirteen

words. Another narrator might have given more attention to this speech, given
that it is uttered at such a decisive moment. The speech could have been a
nice specimen of Caesar’s rhetorical abilities and a peak in the account of the
battle of Alesia. The narrator of Bellum Gallicum does not choose such a pre-
sentation, thus maintaining an even and fast pace in his account of this battle.
The battle continues and reaches its peak when Caesar takes part in the ac-
tion himself (Caes. Gall. 7.87). A great slaughter ensues shortly afterwards (fit
magna caedes, Caes. Gall. 7.88.3) and the Romans win the battle. Vercingetorix
shows himself a good loser, as he takes full responsibility in a council sum-
moned the next morning:
Caes. Gall. 7.89.1

Postero die Vercingetorix concilio convocato id bellum se suscepisse non
suarum necessitatium, sed communis libertatis causa demonstrat, et

230 chapter 4
quoniam sit fortunae cedendum, ad utramque rem se illis offerre, seu morte
sua Romanis satisfacere seu vivum tradere velint.
On the morrow Vercingetorix summoned a council, at which he stated

that he had undertaken that campaign, not for his own occasions, but
for the general liberty; and that, as they must yield to fortune, he offered
himself to them for whichever course they pleased—to give satisfaction
to the Romans by his death, or to deliver him alive.
The speech shows that Vercingetorix, now conquered, indeed formed a great
threat to Rome. He himself states that his warfare was communis libertatis
causa, the liberation of the whole of Gaul. Vercingetorix takes full responsibil-
ity in this speech and, thus, this relatively short indirect speech communicates
to the narratees that it is not just one Gaul that has surrendered, but that it
means that the Romans have won the war and subdued Gaul.
The narrative is concluded with postwar arrangements made by Caesar. Cae-
sar makes sure that the Haeduans and the Arverni are given a second chance
and does not distribute them as slaves among his men and travels to the Haed-
uans himself. Both the Haeduans and the Arverni surrender themselves. Here,
Caesar shows the indulgence that the Haeduans immediately missed when
they had defected to Vercignetorix’ side (Caes. Gall. 7.63.8-9).
A report of writing follows, functioning to bring the narrative from Gaul
back to Rome, where a supplicatio is granted.
Caes. Gall. 7.90.8

His litteris cognitis Romae dierum viginti supplicatio redditur.
When the despatches of the campaign were published at Rome a public

thanksgiving of twenty days was granted.
The book ends with this supplicatio in Rome. Caesar and his troops have done
their duty. Rome is safe and may take twenty days to celebrate.
4.4 Conclusion: Speech and Thought in Caesar's Bellum Gallicum
The choices for specific forms and functions in speech and thought repre-
sentation are a means for a narrator to communicate with his narratees. The
narrator of Bellum Gallicum seems to exploit these means to the fullest and
presents the speeches and thoughts of his characters in accordance to his own

communicative goals. Among these goals seem to be a defense of the war in

Gaul and, especially, a positive portrayal of Caesar.
The self-representation of the narrator contributes to these general commu-
nicative goals, and part of this self-representation may be constructed from his
strategies concerning speech and thought representations. Ideas on war that un-
derpin the narrative of Bellum Gallicum, too, contribute to the portrayal of Caesar
and the defense of the war in Gaul. In Bellum Gallicum, war is something a hu-
man being can control, anticipate, plan and execute efficiently. This holds for all
Romans and especially for Caesar. Non-Romans in this work, however, tend to be
affected by war, and for them, therefore, war is not the manageable and efficient
procedure that it is for Romans. These ideas on war are conveyed by means of
several recurring techniques or strategies concerning representations of speech
or thought. Lastly, speech and thought representations may also directly function
in the light of the defense of the war and/ or a positive portrayal of Caesar.
4.4.1 An Efficient and Strategic Narrator

The narrator of Bellum Gallicum presents himself as omniscient, efficient, de-
cisive and straightforward. This self-presentation emerges not only from the
ways and frequencies in which he uses thoughts and direct speech but also
from the strategic use of both deictic centres in non-direct discourse and his
alternations between long and brief forms of representations. The presenta-
tion of the narrative is in line with the actions of Caesar and underscore them.
The Caesarian narrator, in short, is as efficient as his main character.
The straightforwardness of the narrator seems related to the lack of re-
ported narrators. Rather than explicitly discussing other sources or alternative
accounts of the events, the Caesarian narrator keeps himself to one story line
and presents it as straightforwardly as possible. Especially as his straightfor-
wardness and objectivity are, at certain points in his narrative, clearly just
strategies. Thus, the clear-cut presentational style has the paradoxical effect
that it increases the suspicion of (perhaps just modern) readers, of which
Rambaud (1966) seems the most famous example.
4.4.2 Thoughts
Thoughts, deliberations and, in rare cases, emotions of characters show that
the narrator has access to the minds of his characters and underscores his
omniscience and concomitant authority. Most, but certainly not, all of these
thoughts are from Caesar. The many collective sentiments of, especially,
non-Roman groups illustrate that the narrator is aware of the emotions and
thoughts of the Roman enemies- knowledge that underscores his authority
and omniscience.

232 chapter 4
4.4.3 Direct Speech

It has often been observed that direct speech hardly ever occurs in Bellum Gal-
licum.182 This infrequent use alone should, of course, make us pay all the more
attention to our interpretation of the direct speeches that do occur. Rasmussen
summarizes his explanation of these and the other instances of direct speech
in Caesar’s works as follows:
An den Stellen, an denen ein Entschluß zu fassen ist, an denen man durch
zweckdienliches und tatkräftiges Handeln die Initiative an sich reißen muß,
bedient sich Caesar (in den späteren Büchern) mit Vorliebe der direkten
Rede.183
Rasmussen emphasizes the vigour of the speaking characters and the dramatic
nature of the scenes involved. It is indeed the case that all instances of direct
speech in my corpus occur in scenes that are dramatic or, more specifically,
scenes that are presented in a highly dramatic fashion. The very choice for di-
rect speech is one of the means by which the narrator presents these scenes as
dramatic moments in which action is required. Therefore, Rasmussen’s view
does not seem to explain the use of direct speech completely.
I think we should give more emphasis to the communicative goals of the
narrator with these direct speeches and explain their form from this angle. The
direct speeches seem to function as the proof for an implicit or explicit prop-
osition of the narrator.
This textual strategy is illustrated in the direct speeches of Marcus Petro-
nius, one of the few Roman individuals who speak in Bellum Gallicum. In his
speeches, Marcus Petronius admits to a mistake and takes full responsibility
for his own death, taking away the possible blaming of Caesar for the losses at
Gergovia. His self-sacrifice portrays him as a true Roman hero, but his apolo-
gies, more importantly, prove the narrator’s point that Caesar was right in his
strategy at Gergovia, as Caesar foresaw these problems. The narratee needs the
‘exact’ wording of the character to draw a sound conclusion about his remorse.
The direct speech of Marcus Petronius illustrates the bravery of the Roman
army and shows that Roman army men were ready to face the ultimate con-
sequence of war. The narrator seems to reach his communicative goal most
effectively by presenting the speech in a direct form.
182 See especially Rasmussen 1963.

183 Rasmussen 1963: 20.

The same holds for the other direct speeches in my corpus. These are all
uttered by non-Romans and seem to illustrate that the opponents in this war
were not to be trusted, barbaric and at one point even desperate due to their
fear of Caesar and the Roman army. Critognatus’s speech is meant to illustrate
the cruelty and despair of the Gauls during the siege of Alesia, as the narra-
tor himself says (Caes. Gall. 7.77.1). The direct speeches of Vercingetorix and
Litaviccus show that they are liars, as the narratee infers when he contrasts his
speech with the surrounding narrative.
When this narrator, in short, uses direct speech, he seems to communicate
to the narratees that they should hear something for themselves. He uses the
speech as an explicit or implicit proof for his own ideas.
4.4.4 Non-Direct Representations of Speech and Thought

The efficiency of the narrator is illustrated by the most common form of a
speech and thought representation in this corpus, to wit a short indirect or
mentioned speech. Brief speeches underscore the efficiency and speed of Cae-
sar’s warfare. Often, these short speeches are messages, functioning to switch
from one part of the story world to another. First the Gauls perform an ac-
tion, for instance, and then a message about this action is brought to Caesar.
The Caesarian narrator adjusts the form of the message to the knowledge of
his narratees: if the narratees are familiar with the content of the message, he
tends to present it as a mentioned speech, thus avoiding needless repetition.
The frequent occurrence of commands, too, shows that the narrator is an
efficient presenter of the events in his story, as a command is a way of narrating
two events at once. Because it is considered self-evident that commands, typ-
ically given by Caesar, are executed in Bellum Gallicum, a command narrates
the event of the command and the execution of this command.
Even when they are short, indirect speeches and thoughts often contain
mimetic elements in Bellum Gallicum. This representational form is efficient,
but nevertheless gives a suggestion of the tone of the character who is speak-
ing. Using mimetic elements, the narrator suggests that he uses phrases and
mimetic elements of the characters. These elements express the tone of voice
or illustrate the convincing character of a speech. At several occasions, these
persuasive mimetic elements do not only seem to be meant to persuade other
characters. They seem to function as a means of persuasion on the level of the
narrator and his narratees as well.
The frequent use of mimetic elements in Bellum Gallicum seems to mean
that the preference of the narrator for indirect speech or thought does not
emerge from a need to control explicitly the wording of the speech and thought
representations. Rather, it is the surrounding narrative that the narrator seems

234 chapter 4
to want to control, as he may alternate more and less elaborate forms of speech
and thought representation to create a certain narrative pace.
Furthermore, the concomitant availability of two deictic centres might be
an explanation for the extensive use of non-direct discourse in Bellum Gal-
licum. The narrator has the possibility to use two deictic centres as a means
to emphasize certain parts of the speech or thought. Non-direct speech and
thought representations in Bellum Gallicum thus seem to combine the prox-
imity and directness of oratio recta and the distance and explicit narratorial
mediation of highly summarized mentioned discourse.
Often, the use of the narrator’s deictic centre may be analysed in terms of
‘Leserlenkung’ or ‘framing’. In Bellum Gallicum I have found several forms of
the use of the deictic centre of the narrator in non-direct discourse.
First of all, the narrator may use his own deictic centre to organize non-direct
discourse explicitly, partitioning it by inserting main clauses from which sepa-
rate parts of indirect speech or thought are dependent.184 In Bellum Gallicum 1
and 7, a total amount 17 partitioned speeches occur. The effect of this form is
an emphasis on the separate components of the speech, which often seem to
have their own particular function of the narrative. The parts of these speeches
each have their own governing verb, which tends to clarify this specific func-
tion. This presentational form may also suggest that a longer speech was given
but that only a few points of the speech are presented. In addition to the 17
partitioned speeches, nine partitioned thoughts occur in Bellum Gallicum 1
and 7. These thoughts are almost exclusively Caesar’s. They generally precede
a difficult decision by Caesar, suggesting that he systematically analysed the
problem and step-by-step reached the only possible solution. In addition, these
partitioned thoughts are a structured way to explain a decision beforehand.
Secondly, a conspicuous way of the use of the deictic centre of the narrator
in Bellum Gallicum is the use of first person pronouns and verb forms in indi-
rect discourse. Using nos or noster at several occasions, the narrator seems to
involve his narratees. He does not often do this but seems to do so at points in
his narrative in which the narratees might already share a sense of indignation
that the (Roman) characters in the narrative experience.
Relative clauses within stretches of indirect discourse contain indica-
tive verb forms at several occasions in this corpus.185 The narrator uses these
184 For an enumeration of partitioned thoughts in Bellum Gallicum 1 and 7, see the footnote
included in my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.33.2-34.1. For partitioned speeches in Bellum
Gallicum, see my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.43.4-9.
185 See my discussion of Caes. Gall. 1.10.1 for an enumeration of these indicative relative
clauses.

relative clauses to insert information into the indirect discourse with which he
‘repairs’ a lack in the knowledge of his narratees. Often, however, he seems to
have other, somewhat manipulative goals as well, reminding his narratees of
vacant spaces in Gaul threatened by Germans, for instance (Caes. Gall. 1.28.2).
Thus, he subtly draws his narratees into his take on the events.
Indicative relative clauses will, by all readers, be interpreted as presented
from the perspective of the narrator. I would like to connect this common in-
terpretation of indicative relative clauses with the specific and limited use of
free indirect discourse in my corpus. I have found twelve candidates for an
interpretation as free indirect thought, usually occurring as part of partitioned
thoughts.186 The use of the indicative in these excerpts indicate that the narra-
tor takes full responsibility, thus suggesting that it represents a fact and not just
a thought or opinion. Often, mimetic elements emphasize, in turn, that this
fact plays a role in the thoughts or decisions of the character in the context. I
hope to have shown that these free indirect thoughts in Bellum Gallicum 1 and
7 represent ideas or opinions with which both the character and the narrator
could agree.
Similar to free indirect thoughts in these respects (indicative and truth
value) are descriptions of geographical features in indicative imperfect verb
forms. By using the imperfect tense, the narrator presents these geographical
features in line with the temporal perspective of his characters, while present
tense forms would have been a narratorial interruption. These descriptions
were not explicitly part of this study but they would be an interesting subject
of further research.187
I would, all in all, conclude that non-direct discourse allows the narrator to
switch between the two deictic centres according to his needs. Thus, he may,
for instance, emphasize certain parts while nevertheless conveying the tone,
liveliness and, on some occasions, persuasive force of speeches and thoughts
by characters.
4.4.5 Alternation of Forms within an Episode

Brief indirect and mentioned speeches are alternated with longer indirect
speeches in several episodes. An analysis of these alternations shows that not
only Caesar the general is competent, decisive and efficient but that the nar-
rator, too, knows what goals he wants to achieve and how he can achieve them
as efficiently as possible. The narrator inserts long speeches and, thus, slows
186 See the introduction to this chapter for an enumeration.

187 Cf. Rijksbaron 2012.

236 chapter 4
down the pace of the narrative when problems and conflicts need to be ex-
plained or may be solved with words (e.g. about Dumnorix, Ariovistus or the
leadership of the Haeduans). When action needs to be taken, the narrator sees
no reason to waste words on speeches and thoughts and uses short (summa-
rized) indirect or mentioned representations to indicate what has been said.
Brief forms of speech and thought representation often have Caesar as their
speaker, conveying the idea that Caesar solves problems in a straightforward
and efficient manner.
The Caesarian narrator, in short, is as efficient as his main character. The
presentation of his narrative is in line with the actions of Caesar and under-
score them.
4.4.6 War as an Efficient and Manageable Procedure

Battle episodes in Bellum Gallicum contain relatively less speech and thought
representation than other episodes. This is, of course, in line with the typi-
cal war narrative motive that there are proper times and places for action
and proper times and places for speaking. In addition, the infrequency of
speeches on the battlefield may be connected to the idea that efficiency and
long-winded speeches do not go together. In this way, the use of speech repre-
sentation seems to convey that war is an efficient procedure. It is executed by
capable men for which long-winded exhortations or explanations are unnec-
essary. The idea that war is an efficient procedure thus reflects positively on
the troops, as well as on their general.
The idea that war is a manageable, predictable procedure in Bellum Gal-
licum may be derived from the many speeches and thoughts of, especially,
Caesar in which ensuing events are foreshadowed.188 This strategy seems to be
most effective when a loss or other problem is at hand. A problem, such as
the defectione Haeduorum or the losses at Gergovia, tends to be foreshadowed
and presented as inevitable in thoughts and speeches of Caesar. Thus, prob-
lems seem to be marginalized before they even occur. The fact that it is usually
Caesar who is responsible for this foreshadowing contributes to his positive
portrayal.
Vercingetorix, however, resembles Caesar in this respect. Although the cor-
pus contains only four thoughts of Vercingetorix, these all foreshadow later
events and show Vercingetorix’ strategic insights. Vercingetorix’ speeches,
too, characterize him as an authoritative, rhetorically gifted and strategically
planning leader of all of Gaul. Under his leadership, the Gauls seem to finally
188 Cf. Riggsby 2006: 193.

become united. This unity and Vercingetorix’ leadership are presented as

a threat to Rome. Vercingetorix’ excellent leadership not only enhances the
eventual defeat, it also seems to suggest the idea that authoritative leadership
in war will lead to success and, vice versa, that success in war is due to leader-
ship abilities. Strategic insight is a means to control war.
Another way to control war is intelligence. The enemy is an unknown yet
knowable factor in Bellum Gallicum. This is conveyed by the many speech and
thoughts representations that contain intelligence on the actions of the ene-
mies. Many brief (mentioned) speeches recapitulize already narrated actions
of enemies and communicate to the narratees that Caesar heard about them.
More elaborately, indirectly presented speech and thought representations
present information as it reaches Caesar. This intelligence, thus, presents part
of the primary narrative, functioning as informational excursions. Not only do
these speech and thought representations form a narrativized way to present
this information but they also contribute to the portrayal of Caesar. As he is
the most frequent addressee of intelligence, he is presented as a general who
is ‘in the know’.
Whereas war is, in short, a manageable and efficient procedure for Caesar, it
is much less predictable for his opponents. The control of war, resulting from
unity and leadership, is what non-Romans seem to lack in Bellum Gallicum. The
Gauls and Germans do not plan war (with Vercingetorix as an exception), they
merely experience war and, on some occasions, react to it in horrifying and
barbaric ways. The impact of war on non-Roman groups is made clear by the
narrator in several collective sentiments, in which the Gauls, for instance, do
not exactly know what to do or in which women on the battlefield express their
fear and despair. These collective sentiments seem to be one of the few ways
in which the narrator conveys what it is like to be in this story world and to be
part of battle. The awe and horror of non-Romans seems to function in order
to portray the Romans as formidable enemies, thus praising them indirectly.
4.4.7 War as Necessary

In the world of Bellum Gallicum immediate action is necessary when the peace
and stability in your territory is threatened by its original inhabitants or other
tribes, especially when these peoples are strong and decide to join their forces in a
general revolt. The certainty that action is necessary results from a thorough gath-
ering of intelligence and strategic deliberation. Speech and thought representa-
tion functions to present this intelligence in the form of both short and long mes-
sages. The deliberations are presented in the form of indirect thoughts by Caesar.
Furthermore, speech and thought representation is used by the narrator
of Bellum Gallicum to show that, in several episodes of this war, a phase of

238 chapter 4
diplomacy preceded that of battle. Diplomatic speeches tend to take the form
of elaborate indirect speeches with many mimetic elements, conveying the
goals of the characters. In their diplomatic speeches, characters show that
they want the best for their people or need to make sure that the person they
ask for help is properly informed. The narrator, too, seems to have goals with
these speeches. First of all, longer speeches in which Caesar is informed about
certain problems at the same time function to inform the narratees of these
problems. Secondly, the narrator uses the speeches in his effort to show that,
especially in the first book of Bellum Gallicum, Caesar tried to solve the prob-
lems in Gaul through diplomacy. The conversations between Ariovistus and
Caesar, for instance, make clear that Ariovistus would not listen to reason and
that war, thus, was inevitable.
When diplomacy fails or is not an option, the necessary action takes the
form of war. War is, in the world of Bellum Gallicum, something you can plan
and execute efficiently, an idea that is underscored in several speech and
thought representations. The idea that war is efficient and manageable helps
to ‘sell’ war as a necessity. It is a procedure that needs to be executed and this
can be done swiftly and efficiently, especially by Roman troops lead by Caesar.
Thus, the ideas on war both function as a defense of the whole operation in
Gaul and as part of a positive portrayal of Caesar.
4.4.8 Caesar’s Celeritas, Diplomatic Approach and Strategic Insight

The forms and techniques in which Caesar’s speeches and thoughts are used
are part of a larger communicative goal of characterizing his celeritas, his stra-
tegic insight and his thoughtful and diplomatic approach to problems.
Speeches by Caesar tend to be presented in efficient forms, especially when
he has taken a decision and starts to execute his plans. His battle exhortations
take the form of mentioned speeches or very brief indirect speeches, if they
are presented at all. The treatment of commands in Bellum Gallicum seems
illustrative. Commands by Caesar are manifold but their execution is hardly
ever explicitly narrated. This makes the narrative high paced or even elliptic,
underscoring both Caesar’s decisiveness and his celeritas.
For Caesar, war seems a logical sequence of events. It does not seem to have
an emotional impact on him. The only problems he encounters seem to be of
a diplomatic or strategic nature and can be solved after a systematic analysis.189
189 The corpus contains 69 indirect thoughts, 5 reported thoughts and 5 (possible) instances
of free indirect thought by Caesar. Characters other than Caesar are, together, responsible
for 58 indirect thought and one (possible) instance of free indirect thought. Most of the
indirect thoughts (N = 34) are collective sentiments of non-Roman groups.

The systematic analysis is underscored by the presentation of several

thoughts together forming one line of thought or decision making process.190
The partitioned presentation of a decision process as a step-by-step proce-
dure allows the narratees to think along with Caesar and that they may reach
the same conclusion. As said, the steps evoke the impression that Caesar has
an analytical and systematical approach to problems.
Moreover, Caesar’s thoughts tend to anticipate events that later in the nar-
rative indeed occur, as do his speeches. The foreshadowing of the outcome of a
battle, for instance, characterizes Caesar as an insightful and strategic general.
Even if he foresees losses that later indeed occur, these losses seem to be less
serious because Caesar had taken them into account beforehand.
Lastly, Caesar is not only characterized by his own speeches and thoughts
but also by those of others, especially of Non-Romans. Collective sentiments
seem to be one of the few ways in which the narrator conveys what it is like to
be in this story world and to be part of battle. In addition, collective sentiments
contain indirect praise of Caesar, which is all the more effective as it comes
from his opponents. A good illustration of this is the sentiment of the Haedui,
and Eporedorix and Viridomarus especially, in which they regret their defectio
and miss Caesar’s indulgence. Collective sentiments, in short, present to the
narratees the impact of Caesar’s actions and character on non-Romans, thus
contributing to his positive portrayal.
4.5 Appendices
4.5.1 Speech and Thought in the Episodes of Bellum Gallicum,

Book 1 and 7
The overview below presents the distribution of speech and thought representations
in the episodes of Bellum Gallicum.191 The table presents the numbers of different
forms of speech and thought representations in an episode, the total amount of words
in representations of speeches and thoughts, the total amount of words in the episode
190 As far as partitioned thoughts are concerned, only Labienus seems to be comparable to
Caesar. He, too, is presented as thinking through a problem in this systematic and analyt-
ical way. Labienus does so in an episode in which he replaces Caesar and the partitioned
thought contributes to emphasizing this role.
191 The word counts in this table are based on the text of www.thelatinlibrary.com. Although
these numbers might slightly differ from texts such as the OCT or the Teubner text, they
are sufficiently accurate for the word counts, as those are meant to give a rough indication
of the amount of speech and thought representation in books or episodes.

240 chapter 4
and, lastly, the percentage of representations of speech and thought in the episode.
Battle episodes are printed in bold.
Episode Direct Indir. Ment. Indirect Ment. FIT Ment. RST: Text: % RST
speech speech speech thought thought writing words words
Orgetorix 4 3 3 137 594 23

Initial phase 19 4 9 615 1675 37
Helvetian war
Dumnorix 11 8 3 1 543 648 84
Victory over 15 2 6 2 2 288 1084 27
Helvetians
Initial phase 41 7 21 3 2634 3334 79
Ariovistus war
Ariovistus war 6 1 5 120 842 14
Collective gallic 8 6 1 154 339 45
rebellion
Rise of 2 31 20 21 1 979 2379 41
Vercingetorix
Bourges 7 3 10 3 300 1199 25
Haeduans, part 1 4 2 5 1 247 517 48
Gergovia, part 1 2 2 3 1 38 202 19
Haeduans, part 2 2 14 3 2 5 308 598 52
Gergovia, part 2 2 62 112 55
Haeduans, part 3 2 2 17 173 10
Gergovia, battle 2 15 4 7 3 430 1229 35
Haeduans, part 4 3 2 6 1 171 422 41
Labienus 9 6 7 1 218 711 31
prelude to Alesia 41 7 21 3 227 733 31
Alesia 1 28 11 14 1 1 811 2956 27
4.5.2 Speaking and Thinking Characters

The overview below presents the speakers and thinkers in Bellum Gallicum, book 1 and
7 is given in table 3. The table shows numbers for Caesar and Labienus on the Roman
side and Ariovistus and Vercingetorix on the non-Roman side. Speech and thought
representations of other individuals is taken together, as these numbers are small. Ro-
man collectives, non-Roman collectives and messengers are presented as a separate
categories.

Direct Indirect Ment. Indirect Ment. FIT Ment. Sum of

speech speech speech thought thought writing words
Romans
Caesar 83 19 69 5 7 1 2776
Labienus 4 2 5 1 133
Other individuals 2 2 72
Collectives 8 2 8 212
Non-Romans
Ariovistus 8 2 1 678
Vercingetorix 2 18 11 4 765
Other individuals 3 19 11 4 1508
Collectives 59 13 34 4 1 1467
Others
Messengers 24 34 1 599
Unspecified 4 2 89


Adema Speech and Thought Belllum 1 - 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adema Speech and Thought Belllum 1 - 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

chapter 4

Caesar, Bellum Gallicum 1 and 7

1 Rambaud 1966: 245.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/9789004347120_005

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

4.1 Overview of Representations of Speech and Thought

6 Stienaers (in prep.).

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

narratives, direct speeches mean a decrease in pace in Bellum Gallicum and

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

A quantitative overview of types of speech and thought representations is

table 4.1 Types of representations of speech, thought and writing in Bellum

Instances Sum of words Average length

Speech and thought representations function in several narrative tech-

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

4.2 Close Reading of Speech and Thought

4.2.1 Gaul and Orgetorix, Caes. Gall. 1.1 -4.3

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

speech twice. First as a mentioned speech, depending on the verb persuasit.

Caes. Gall. 1.2.1

Caes. Gall. 1.3.4-8

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

In the course of his travels he persuaded Casticus, of the Sequani, son

Two mentioned speeches, both depending on persuadet, narrate what

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

potentissimos ac firmissimos populos may be interpreted as pointing out to

Caes. Gall. 1.4.1

The design was revealed to the Helvetians by informers.

14 Dangel 1995: 99.

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

This is a mentioned speech in which an anaphorial expression (ea res) refers

Caes. Gall. 1.4.3-4

16 In sum, 90 speech representations are meant to provide information to the addressee.

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

The possible suicide of Orgetorix is presented as an indirect question depend-

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.6.1-2

The excerpt is a geographical description that could have been presented in

22 See also my discussion of Caes. Gall. 7.69.1-6.

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.7.1

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.7.2

From the whole Province he requisitioned the largest possible number

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.7.3

28 Görler 1976: 108.

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.10.1

32 Görler 1976: 104.

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.11.3

35 Speeches in which one of the elements is explained by a relative clause containing an

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.12.1-3

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.13.2

The collective sentiment is presented as a combination of a mentioned thought

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

Caes. Gall. 1.13.3-5

Suzanne M. Adema - 9789004347120

4.1 Overview of Representations of Speech and Thought

table 4.1 Types of representations of speech, thought and writing in Bellum

4.2 Close Reading of Speech and Thought