Say, Ulpianus, do you propose that Caesar's writing is, for the modern Latinist, merely functional?
I'm a fan of him myself.
Brilliant, impeccable Latin, and, really, not hardly as boring as some, who've perhaps read the first few lines only, make it out to be. Take, for instance, this passage, wherein Caesar sheds some light on the Gauls' character as he sees it. Certainly, even if lacking complete veracity, it bespeaks a great sensitivity, almost a sense of humour, and, as always, great writership.
His de rebus Caesar certior factus et infirmitatem Gallorum veritus, quod sunt in consiliis capiendis mobiles et novis plerumque rebus student, nihil his committendum existimavit. Est enim hoc Gallicae consuetudinis, uti et viatores etiam invitos consistere cogant et quid quisque eorum de quaque re audierit aut cognoverit quaerant et mercatores in oppidis vulgus circumsistat quibus ex regionibus veniant quas ibi res cognoverint pronuntiare cogat. His rebus atque auditionibus permoti de summis saepe rebus consilia ineunt, quorum eos in vestigio paenitere necesse est, cum incertis rumoribus serviant et pleri ad voluntatem eorum ficta respondeant.
(and I myself don't too much fancy Horace or Vergil. Tacitus though, indeed, was an excellent writer, although, ei Sallustium antepono.
Episcopus, all of what you say may be true, yet, as you yourself said, you have little experience with German grammar. The difficulty of a language, by a large measure, seems to depend from the complexity of its grammar. The nucleus of German grammar congrues with that of Latin grammar. Perhaps it goes some way to illustrate this that the greatest Latin scholarship originated and thence continued to exist in Germany.