The Genre of the Commentarius and Caesar’s Commentarii

In Brutus, written in 46 and thus probably referring only to the BG (below), Cicero emphasizes its straightforward narrative, beautiful simplicity, and lack of rhetorical ornamentation. He takes it for granted that Caesar wrote it to provide material for histories to be written by others; yet in fact it already is a history - so much so that others wisely refrain from attempting to improve on it. Hirtius makes the same assumption. Do they reflect Caesar’s intention?

In 55, Cicero had expressed the same view of a commentarius in a letter to the historian Lucceius (Fam. 5.12) whom he wished to write a history of his own consulship in 63. If Lucceius agreed, Cicero promised to provide commentarii on all aspects (10). When Lucceius declined, as others had earlier, Cicero himself wrote a Greek commentarius on his consulship (Att. 1.19). Atticus had also written one; Cicero considered it slightly rough and unkempt but charming precisely because ofits lack of ornament - quite unlike Cicero’s own which was richly ornamented:

Posidonius has already written to me... that when he read this hypomnema of mine, which I had sent him with the idea that he might compose something more elaborate on the same theme, so far from being stimulated to composition he was effectively frightened away. The fact is, I have dumbfounded the whole Greek community. . . . If you like the book, please see that it is made available at Athens and the other Greek towns.

I think it may add some lustre to my achievements. (Att. 2.1.1-2; trans. Shackleton Bailey 1978a)

Apparently, this was a fully elaborated historical work, adorned with a plethora of stylistic effects and ready for publication. Hence a commentarius did not need to be merely a collection of material assembled and sketched out for elaboration by others.

Yet Cicero thought so, despite the efforts he invested in his work. How can we reconcile his conflicting statements and actions? Most importantly, what was a commentarius in Roman tradition and perceptions (Klotz 1910; Bomer 1953; RUpke 1992; Riggsby 2006: 133-55)?

Varro wrote for Pompey a commentarius eisagogikos, an introduction to senate procedures (Gell. NA 14.7.1-2); a commentariolum petitionis, a guide to campaigning for office, is attributed to Quintus Cicero. Heads of households kept records of contracts and rituals; priestly colleges and magistrates held acta, tabulae, or commen-tarii as records of actions and transactions, serving both as aide-memoire and as documentation for later use. Similarly, the collection of records that Caesar handed over to the consul Antonius before his planned Parthian campaign was called acta or commentarii (e. g., Cic. Phil. 2.95; 5.10-11; Vell. Pat. 2.60.4). Memoirs or autobiographical writings of eminent persons (such as M. Aemilius Scaurus, Q. Lutatius Catulus, Sulla, or Augustus) were acta, res gestae, de vita sua or commentarii (hypom-n'emata); despite the variety of terms, they had one purpose: to preserve and describe the author’s achievements from his own perspective, to justify and glorify them, and to correct misperceptions.

None of the references to such writings offer the slightest hint that they were intended to provide material for historians. How Cicero and Hirtius arrived at their different view is unclear but it is unlikely to have been shared by Caesar himself. Rather, he may have picked up another tradition of commentarii: traditional Roman historiography, interchangeably called annales or commentarii and written in a simple, forthright style (Eden 1962: 75-94). It is thus possible that Caesar’s choice of genre entailed a conscious rejection of the Greek-style historia, preferred by Cicero, in favor of traditional Roman historical records. At any rate, Caesar’s commentarii should be understood as his own presentation of his deeds and views, written in an appropriately elevated but modest style, and intended to be published and to persuade the readers. They were based on his dispatches ( litterae) to the senate, those of his officers to himself, and probably a collection of materials (notes and records) that formed his personal archive, his own (preliminary) commentarii on the events he was involved in.