1. Caesar’s Commentariī: Considerations of Genre

2. Genre and Commentariī in Ancient Rome
Caesar’s Commentariī cause problems of genre classification for scholars of ancient literature
commentariī were likely considered their own genre, but we don’t know much about this type of writing
the closest modern genre might be memoirs, but evidence is scarce; commentariī served many functions in antiquity
what we know with reasonable certainty:
they were generally straightforward in style and decidedly unrhetorical
they were first-hand, autobiographical accounts, focusing on the authors deeds and accomplishments (for self-glorification or propaganda)
they might have been meant to supply source material for proper historical writing, but were not meant to be read as history proper
Caesar’s Commentariī largely seem to conform to what we know about the genre, but there are issues

3. Ancient Reception of the Commentariī
“They should be commended; for they are stripped, straightforward, and graceful, with all ornament of speech laid aside, as with a garment. But while he wanted others to have available material from which those who wished to write history could select, he perhaps obliged only those foolish enough to apply their curling irons to that material; sensible men he certainly deterred from writing: for nothing is sweeter in history than unadorned and lucid brevity.” - Cicero, Brutus 262
Translated by John Marincola, ”On Writing History from Herodotus to Herodian” (2017: )

4. Ancient Reception of the Commentariī
“They should be commended; for they are stripped, straightforward, and graceful, with all ornament of speech laid aside, as with a garment. But while he wanted others to have available material from which those who wished to write history could select, he perhaps obliged only those foolish enough to apply their curling irons to that material; sensible men he certainly deterred from writing: for nothing is sweeter in history than unadorned and lucid brevity.” - Cicero, Brutus 262
Translated by John Marincola, ”On Writing History from Herodotus to Herodian” (2017: )

5. Ancient Reception of the Commentariī
“They should be commended; for they are stripped, straightforward, and graceful, with all ornament of speech laid aside, as with a garment. But while he wanted others to have available material from which those who wished to write history could select, he perhaps obliged only those foolish enough to apply their curling irons to that material; sensible men he certainly deterred from writing: for nothing is sweeter in history than unadorned and lucid brevity.” - Cicero, Brutus 262
Translated by John Marincola, ”On Writing History from Herodotus to Herodian” (2017: )

6. Ancient Reception of the Commentariī
“They should be commended; for they are stripped, straightforward, and graceful, with all ornament of speech laid aside, as with a garment. But while he wanted others to have available material from which those who wished to write history could select, he perhaps obliged only those foolish enough to apply their curling irons to that material; sensible men he certainly deterred from writing: for nothing is sweeter in history than unadorned and lucid brevity.” - Cicero, Brutus 262
Translated by John Marincola, ”On Writing History from Herodotus to Herodian” (2017: )

7. Ancient Reception of the Commentariī
“They should be commended; for they are stripped, straightforward, and graceful, with all ornament of speech laid aside, as with a garment. But while he wanted others to have available material from which those who wished to write history could select, he perhaps obliged only those foolish enough to apply their curling irons to that material; sensible men he certainly deterred from writing: for nothing is sweeter in history than unadorned and lucid brevity.” - Cicero, Brutus 262
Translated by John Marincola, ”On Writing History from Herodotus to Herodian” (2017: )

8. Problems of Genre in Caesar’s Commentariī
again, C.’s comm. seem to conform to ancient expectations of the genre
BUT, there are also clear signs of contaminations from other genres and deviation from the expected norms
Cicero’s assessment suggests that C.’s comm. were read as history, although commentariī were not considered history proper
there are many elements of historiography present in the comm.
annalistic structure (year-by-year reporting of events)
reporting of historical events from an omniscient and 3rd person perspective
subject matter focus on war
geographical and ethnographical digressions
direct and indirect speeches
occasional authorial interjection on the importance or exemplary nature of certain people and events

9. Problems of Genre in Caesar’s Commentariī
again, C.’s comm. seem to conform to ancient expectations of the genre
BUT, there are also clear signs of contaminations from other genres and deviation from the expected norms
despite ancient and some modern claims, the comm. are highly literary
full of rhetorical devices and figures of speech
the work as a whole and individual books are carefully structured, with instances of ring-composition throughout the work
sustained thematic connections between individual books and episodes and the work as a whole
careful, sustained character portraits are a constant

10. Speeches in Ancient Historiography

11. Speeches in Historiography
speeches (direct and indirect) were a staple of ancient historical writing
they may serve one or more of a number of purposes, e.g.:
characterizing an individual or group
making a statement about the importance of an event
signaling an important point in the narrative
allowing the author to show off his rhetorical skills
expressing the historical method of the author
identifying and evaluating contrasting viewpoints
isolating and expanding on key themes
the place/function of speeches in commentariī as a genre is unclear; some authors used them sparingly, others not at all

12. The Nature of Direct Speech in Antiquity
we need to be wary of interpreting direct speech in ancient works with a modern outlook
direct speech in ancient historical works were not necessarily what was actually said in the moment
these may have been actually said, but they were a literary trope expected of authors
it was enough for the ancients to invent speeches that were likely to have been said
this is contrary to modern expectations for direct speeches
we need to keep in mind the literary nature of these speeches when we read, analyze, and interpret them

13. Speeches in Caesar’s Commentariī

14. Speeches in the Commentariī
Caesar shows decided preference for indirect speech in the Commentariī
direct speech is not used in the BG until Book 4 (1x)
this signals an important turn in the work:
occurs at the crucial place where readers might well have forgotten that “Caesar the character” and “Caesar the author/narrator” are the same person
suggests C. is veering his work toward being read as proper history
marks a decidedly more literary shift in the text
after Book 4, direct speech continues throughout the rest of the BG at increasing rates

15. Speeches in the Commentariī

16. The Aquilifer’s Speech (BG 4.25.3)
“dēsilīte”, inquit, “mīlitēs, nisi vultis aquilam hostibus prōdere; ego certē meum reī pūblicae atque imperātōrī officium praestiterō.”
Questions for Discussion
What does this speech add to the narrative?
What literary/rhetorical strategies does Caesar use here? To what effect?
The speaker of these words is pointedly not given a name. Why?
How would Romans react upon hearing this?
How would this impact the Roman reader’s impression of Caesar?