respectability in Roman eyes. Furthermore, his desire that politicians and generals should write history, not men sitting in libraries,
was in accordance with existing Roman tradition. How did Roman writing develop under these Hellenistic influences? In the late
second century a distinction was drawn between annales, in the strict sense of a chronicle of events year by year, and historiae,
which involved causal analysis. In due course the term 'historiae' was to be used by Sallust and Tacitus for works about their own
lifetime, while 'annales' tended to mean ancient history. Cato had been the pioneer in turning history into a political weapon; by 100
B.C. politicians were writing memoirs to set the record right about themselves. This trend led in time to Caesar's commentaries and
Augustus' autobiography and Res Gestae. Biography developed also: C. Gracchus wrote about his elder brother and in the late
Republic great men-Caesar, Pompey, Cato, and Cicero, for example-were commemorated by their admirers. However, side by side
with contemporary history antiquarian history flourished as never before. The material in the earlier annals was expanded by
material culled from a variety of documents, whether genuine or forged, and supplemented by frequently stereotyped inventions,
such as led Livy to wonder how the Volscians and Aequians had enough men to be slaughtered so often by the Romans.
No one could now complain of a shortage of Roman history, but in the view of Cicero's contemporaries what existed was not
readable. Cicero's friends pestered him for a history-'a work in itself most suited to an orator'-and when he died, Cornelius Nepos
(himself a writer of chronicles and short biographies) lamented that the chance of casting the rough and shapeless mass of material
into a worthy literary form was lost. Cicero himself argued that Roman histories could not be compared with Greek because they
lacked ornatus, attractive presentation. This comprised variations in colour and tone, good word-order, and an easy flowing style, in
which ideally the rhythm of the sentences reproduced the rhythm of events. However, more than language was involved in Cicero's
view: histories required proper chronological disposition and geographical descriptions, interpretations of policy and motive, and
judgements on the execution of these policies. Although the fragments known to us of early annalists show spectacular language and
a vigorous narrative skill, they lack the smoothness to beguile a reader over long periods. More important, they may not have given
enough space to interpretation.
Julius Caesar
Caesar's commentaries on his Gallic and Civil Wars are the first good evidence we have of the progress of Roman historiography.
Although they are memoirs with a political purpose, they share many of the characteristics of less committed histories: indeed
tendentiousness and self-glorification are not vices unique to autobiography. Stylistically, Caesar seems to have improved on his
predecessors. The narrative flows clearly and smoothly, but there is little variety of tone nor a great range of vocabulary, and the
style generally resembles that of the official letters we find in Cicero's correspondence. Cicero praised their naked and austere
beauty, precisely because they were stripped of verbal ornament. In organization and interpretation of his material Caesar meets
Cicero's requirements more closely. Indeed the themes of Caesar's Gallic War are typical of mature Roman history. Caesar tells us of
the expansion of Roman power in a successful war, enlivening the story with digressions on geography and the characteristics of
foreign races, and explains its significance by comments in the first person and by speeches in which both he and his opponents
justify their conduct. The whole work is a testimony to Roman virtue, not only that of Caesar himself, but of his troops, whose
abilities are rarely portrayed so effectively elsewhere. There is a political message too. Although Caesar was radical and violent in
his own political career, when discussing the Gallic communities he exalts established power and conservatism. Danger comes from
ambitious men who solicit help from the plebs by largesse and aim at revolution. In spite of the irony which the reader can find in
these remarks, Caesar would have written them quite sincerely: Rome had traditionally sought aid from the 'establishments' among
her allies when securing her empire. The Civil War could not so easily be given a Roman interpretation. Yet once again Caesar's
soldiers are heroes, and Caesar defends his own conduct according to traditional values: when his dignity was threatened and he was
deserted by former friends, he took up arms in defence of the liberty of the Roman people against the machinations of a few
powerful men.