The starting point of any study on Caesar’s De Analogia is Garcea’s recent edition and commentary (2012), its most updated and complete treatment. Rawson 1985 gives a brief but excellent overview of the De Analogia (122–3), and in general discusses the background of many of the topics discussed above (esp. chapter 5, 6, 8, and 10). Hendrickson (1906) is an important work as it laid the foundation for later studies. For an overview of the Latin grammatical tradition and the position of the De Analogia see especially Dahlmann (1935) and Siebenborn (1976). On Caesar and Cicero’s rhetorical theories Lomanto (1994) and Dugan (2005, ch. 3) are important. Among other recent studies, see in particular Poccetti (1993) (on grammar theory), Sinclair (1994) (on linguistic politics), Willi (2010) (on the Epicureanism of De Analogia).

The scanty and fragmentary remains of De Analogia have recently been collected and commented on by Garcea, and research should now take advantage of this new edition in order to further investigate the theoretical framework of the work, as well as its background and reception. An area of particular interest is the relationship of De Analogia with other texts, at a both practical and theoretical level, especially as regards its impact on the standardization of Latin language and orthography. These include both Caesar’s own works, but above all other late Republican and early imperial texts, with which interesting points of contact can at times be identified and could be further explored. An example is the standardization of the spelling -i- in Augustus’ Monumentum Ancyranum (e.g. manibiae, proximae, maximus, amplissimus), which apparently adheres to the precept expounded by Caesar in fragment 5; this may suggest that Caesar’s De Analogia had in fact an authoritative influence on later Latin writing, with possible political implications.

Most of the fragments and testimonies to Caesar’s orations are collected in Malcovati (1976). See also the list of Caesar’s public speeches in van der Blom (2016, 305–12). General discussions of Caesar’s oratory, especially his style are found in Norden (1898, 209–12); Klotz (1917, 186–275); Deichgräber (1950); Eden (1962); Leeman (1963, 156–9); Kennedy (1972, 283–92); Leeman (2001); von Albrecht (1989, 54–8); Fantham (2009, 145–8) and van der Blom (2016, 146–80). For Caesar’s vis, see also Kraus (2005a, 108). For the relationship between Caesar’s orations and the “speeches” in his narrative works, see Eden (1962); Rasmussen (1963); Miller (1975, 49–50); Hall (1998); Riggsby (2006, 142); Grillo (2012). For Cicero’s evaluation of Caesar’s oratory: Leeman (1963, 157–8); Leeman (2001); Gotoff (1993, xxvi–xxvii); Dugan (2005, 177–89); Lowrie (2008, 131–54). Speeches to his soldiers: van Stekelenburg (1976); Chrissanthos (2001).

The fact that all genres of oratio are represented in the extant fragments and testimonia to Caesar’s speeches may betoken a collection of speeches, circulated by Caesar or another (Augustus?); this excellent suggestion of Tony Corbeill deserves more thought than space in this chapter allowed. I discuss Caesar’s speeches and their relation to his career in detail in van der Blom (2016, 146–80).

The most thorough analysis of the Terence fragment remains Schmid (1952), which however is dense and not always easy to follow. A more accessible introduction especially to the stylistic aspects of the fragment is Tatum (2011). Cairns (2012) searches etymological plays in Caesar’s lines. For the sexual imagery in Caesar’s comparison of Terence with Menander, see Woodman (2016). The ‘dialogue’ on poetry between Cicero and Caesar is studied by Marciniak (2008).

Of course, the very limited number of poetry lines attributed to Caesar remains a great impediment in assessing his poetry, but we can always hope that more fragments are found, especially through the discovery of new papyri; for those which we presently have it would be important to assess in a better way the text and the meaning of Cicero’s poem on Terence, especially in the case of the phrase sedatis vocibus: from that it depends the exact interpretation of Caesar’s fragment. Still debated is also the construction of lines 3–4 of Caesar’s Terence fragment: does Terence lack, in Caesar’s eyes, vis comica or simply vis?

Tschiedel (1981) is the essential starting point, offering testimonia, fragments, and extensive commentary. Kierdorf (1978) provides the best reconstruction of Cicero’s Cato. For Republican political invective, see Corbeill (1996) and Craig (2004).

The two essential discussions of Caesar’s letter writing and its significance are still Ebbeler (2003), who approaches Caesarian epistolography from the perspective of the literary historian, and White (2003). More recently, Osgood (2009) offers a stimulating discussion of Caesar’s mastery of communication more generally (including, but not confined to, his epistolary works). Further reading should necessarily include attention to the wider epistolary context, of course, particularly in view of the scant survival of the Caesarian letters themselves. Henderson (2007), for example, includes an important discussion of the degree to which Caesar is also the intended addressee of Cicero’s ad Quintum fratrem 3.1, while Henderson (forthcoming) further develops the theme of Caesar’s importance in the brothers’ epistolary relationship in a broader study of the Q Fr. collection. White 2010 (passim) is also well worth consulting on the wider context of Ciceronian letters written in the shadow of Caesar.

Much has been done on the complex social and political interactions in evidence in the letters of the Ciceronian corpus, and extensive research in epistolography in other fields (particularly Renaissance) has suggested useful approaches to epistolary rhetoric and pragmatics that are already being applied to good effect in the study of classical epistolography and will continue to be fruitful. Although Caesar’s own letters are frustratingly few, and our study of epistolary communication at his time is inevitably dominated by the surviving Ciceronian corpora, there are still rich opportunities for studies of the epistolary interactions of the Caesarians whose letters are preserved in the collections (as also more widely of non-Ciceronian epistolary voices in the corpora), particularly in the civil war and post-assassination periods. The phenomenon of the “open letter,” and the creative pressures exerted upon the composition of epistolary communications by writers’ awareness of “further readers” (e.g. Pompey or Caesar) would also merit further study. Finally, it would be particularly interesting to see a thorough assessment of the degree to which the unknown editor’s design and organization of the Ciceronian collections shaped later reception of Caesar’s personal and political agenda.