Caesar was one of the celebrated orators of his time. He was thus thoroughly aware of the close connections between style of writing, technique of composition, and effect on the reader. His essay De analogia laid out the principles of transforming simple, everyday language into an effective style. Hirtius recalls how rapidly and easily Caesar wrote his commentarii, while Cicero praises them as ‘‘cleanly, directly, and gracefully composed, and divested of all rhetorical trappings’’ (Brut. 262, quoted above).
Indeed, of‘‘Caesar’s individual traits as a writer, the most obvious and unmistakeable are his brevity and his clarity: he seems to have been incapable of wasting words or of becoming obscure’’ (Eden 1962: 101). Yet graceful simplicity does not mean lack of effectiveness in serving specific ends.
This is not the place to analyze Caesar’s style in detail (see, e. g., Eden 1962; Gotoff 1984; Carter 1991: 22-3; Batstone & Damon 2006). Eden suggests that Caesar’s choice of genre entailed a deliberate effort to fit himself into the long tradition of Roman annalistic historiography which also adopted a simple style without much ornamentation (Cic. De or. 2.52-3). Correspondences with the style of the annalists are noticeable, but they should not be exaggerated; Caesar shares certain features as well with Livy and even Cicero (Gotoff 1984: 12). Moreover, Caesar’s style developed over time (Adcock 1956: ch. 4). The ‘‘rise in emotional temperature,’’ visible already in BG Book 7 with Caesar’s heroic effort to overcome ‘‘the Gauls’ last concerted effort for national freedom,’’ increased further in the BC, ‘‘where his sense of engagement and involvement was inevitably paramount’’ (Eden 1962: 94). Such emotional involvement expressed itself in a looser and more flexible style. But this too should not be exaggerated. Gotoff shows that ‘‘a good deal of complexity and much intricacy of composition’’ are visible in the BG long before Book 7. He sees Caesar ‘‘displaying more idiosyncrasy than [he] has ever been credited with.’’ Close reading of Caesar’s text, he concludes, can still yield much more insight. Whether or not ‘‘Caesar is still to be identified with the genus humile," his composition ‘‘can be periodic, complex, and capable of great expressiveness through the use of varied and often subtle technique’’ (1984: 17-18).
Comparison between Caesar's version of an episode and that of another historian who gives the same episode ‘‘full-dress treatment’’ is illuminating. Batstone and Damon (2006: 27-9) do this for Pompey’s death in Egypt (BC 3.104), demonstrating that Caesar's leaner treatment is effective in its own way, serving his specific purpose. Several scholars have examined Caesar's style with specific regard to his propaganda, some subtly (Mutschler 1975), some less so (Rambaud 1966). It is in the sphere of narrative intensity, arrangement, and drama, however, that Caesar rises most clearly above the humble style, whatever his models and predecessors (Rowe 1967; Batstone & Damon 2006). I mention as examples the siege and capitulation of Corfinium (1.16-23), the narrow escape of Pompey from Brundisium (1.25-8), the final stages of the Spanish campaign (1.54-85), and the battle of Pharsalus (3.80-99).
World History
