Christopher Krebs
Christopher B. Krebs studied classics and philosophy in Berlin, Kiel (1st Staatsexamen 2000, Ph. D. 2003), and Oxford (M. St. 2002). He taught at University College Oxford and Harvard before joining Stanford’s Classics department, and held visiting positions at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris and the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae in Munich (see his “You say putator”). He is the co-editor (with John Moles) of Histos and the recipient of the 2012 Christian Gauss Award. In 2015-16 he will be a fellow at Stanford Humanities Center.
He works in the fields of intellectual history, Greek and Roman historiography, and Latin philology and currently on a commentary on Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum 7 ('Green and Yellow,' Cambridge University Press) as well as A History of Ideas of the Roman Republic (W.W. Norton). His co-edited Cambridge Companion to Caesar should appear in the fall of 2016 with his contributions on “Caesar. A Style of Choice,” “More than Words. The Commentarii in their Propagandistic Context,” and "Quaestiones Caesarianae: Then, Now, Hence." Other (most recent and forthcoming) work includes "Caesar's Sisenna" (Classical Quarterly) and “The buried tradition of programmatic titulature among republican historians: Polybius’ Πραγματεία, Asellio’s Res Gestae, and Sisenna’s redefinition of Historiae" (American Journal of Philology). He has appeared on television and radio and occasionally reviews for the WSJ.
He has taught Greek and Latin at all levels, composition courses, seminars on Greek and Roman historiography and Latin poetry, and a freshman seminar on rhetoric. He regularly offers classes in Stanford’s Continuing Studies program, most recently Herodotus: From Story to History and Latin Lovers: A Survey of the Great Roman Love Poems.
He works in the fields of intellectual history, Greek and Roman historiography, and Latin philology and currently on a commentary on Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum 7 ('Green and Yellow,' Cambridge University Press) as well as A History of Ideas of the Roman Republic (W.W. Norton). His co-edited Cambridge Companion to Caesar should appear in the fall of 2016 with his contributions on “Caesar. A Style of Choice,” “More than Words. The Commentarii in their Propagandistic Context,” and "Quaestiones Caesarianae: Then, Now, Hence." Other (most recent and forthcoming) work includes "Caesar's Sisenna" (Classical Quarterly) and “The buried tradition of programmatic titulature among republican historians: Polybius’ Πραγματεία, Asellio’s Res Gestae, and Sisenna’s redefinition of Historiae" (American Journal of Philology). He has appeared on television and radio and occasionally reviews for the WSJ.
He has taught Greek and Latin at all levels, composition courses, seminars on Greek and Roman historiography and Latin poetry, and a freshman seminar on rhetoric. He regularly offers classes in Stanford’s Continuing Studies program, most recently Herodotus: From Story to History and Latin Lovers: A Survey of the Great Roman Love Poems.
less
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Books by Christopher Krebs
Papers by Christopher Krebs
https://histos.org/documents/2023AA02KrebsIt'sCaesarNotMrKing.pdf
between rhetorical form and content, of which (ii) all later allusions acknowledge one.
Gallicum differ in kind, the former being “descriptive” and much indebted to the
techniques of Roman land surveying, the latter being “scientific” and informed
by the methods of Greek geographers. This difference results from their different
contexts: here imperialist, there “cartographic.” The geography of Britannia is
ultimately part of Caesar’s (only passingly and late) attested great cartographic
endeavor to measure “the world,”
The definition of 'elegantia' covers most of what critics, ancient and modern, have deemed noteworthy of Caesar’s style; it will also provide the blueprint for this discussion of his () “Command of Language,” () “Rhetoric of Stringency,” and () “Choice (of) Words.” As will appear time and again, Caesar did not weld his style in isolation: an active contributor to current linguistic and rhetorical debates, he set his own rules, borrowed heavily from the texts of the Roman state (including laws and military reports) and, less clearly, from the traditions of the commentarius and historiography, and occasionally allowed barracks lingo. Caesar’s style is one of choice, and the subsequent pages will sketch what these choices were and how they changed, but also what makes Caesar Caesar, and, in the final section, what makes Caesar a classic – questions often overlooked in the past by those focused on specific problems in a text (especially the BG) that served first and foremost as a textbook of Latin. It has been, in Pascucci’s fine words, “la (s)fortuna di Cesare” that the school author overshadowed the classical author.
It discusses his influential concept of history in the context of the rise of history as a ‘national discipline’ as well as the role that Tacitus’ Germania played therein. It also reconstructs how the Germania not only came to be read as testimony to the German(ic) race but, arguably, helped to conceive of such a race.
The conclusion briefly outlines the print-run of Kohlrausch’s works and suggests that the German nation may indeed have found its people in the course of the nineteenth century and not least because of Kohlrausch’s significant efforts.
https://histos.org/documents/2023AA02KrebsIt'sCaesarNotMrKing.pdf
between rhetorical form and content, of which (ii) all later allusions acknowledge one.
Gallicum differ in kind, the former being “descriptive” and much indebted to the
techniques of Roman land surveying, the latter being “scientific” and informed
by the methods of Greek geographers. This difference results from their different
contexts: here imperialist, there “cartographic.” The geography of Britannia is
ultimately part of Caesar’s (only passingly and late) attested great cartographic
endeavor to measure “the world,”
The definition of 'elegantia' covers most of what critics, ancient and modern, have deemed noteworthy of Caesar’s style; it will also provide the blueprint for this discussion of his () “Command of Language,” () “Rhetoric of Stringency,” and () “Choice (of) Words.” As will appear time and again, Caesar did not weld his style in isolation: an active contributor to current linguistic and rhetorical debates, he set his own rules, borrowed heavily from the texts of the Roman state (including laws and military reports) and, less clearly, from the traditions of the commentarius and historiography, and occasionally allowed barracks lingo. Caesar’s style is one of choice, and the subsequent pages will sketch what these choices were and how they changed, but also what makes Caesar Caesar, and, in the final section, what makes Caesar a classic – questions often overlooked in the past by those focused on specific problems in a text (especially the BG) that served first and foremost as a textbook of Latin. It has been, in Pascucci’s fine words, “la (s)fortuna di Cesare” that the school author overshadowed the classical author.
It discusses his influential concept of history in the context of the rise of history as a ‘national discipline’ as well as the role that Tacitus’ Germania played therein. It also reconstructs how the Germania not only came to be read as testimony to the German(ic) race but, arguably, helped to conceive of such a race.
The conclusion briefly outlines the print-run of Kohlrausch’s works and suggests that the German nation may indeed have found its people in the course of the nineteenth century and not least because of Kohlrausch’s significant efforts.