SOURCE: McGushin, P. Introduction to C. Sallustius Crispus, Bellum Catilinae: A Commentary, pp. 1-24. Leiden, Amsterdam: E. J. Brill, 1977.

[In the following excerpt, McGushin offers an overview of Sallust's life and writings before commenting on the source, form, structure, and style of the Bellum Catilinae and analyzing the author's reputation based on his performance as a writer and a public figure.]

1. LIFE OF SALLUST

In spite of the fact that Sallust's life and writings aroused a wide variety of comment in the ancient world, surprisingly little reliable information exists for much of his career. It is now generally accepted that C. Sallustius Crispus was born at Amiternum in the Sabine land, about fifty miles north-east of Rome, in 86 B.C. and died in 35 B.C., four years before the Battle of Actium.

Our chief source for Sallust's dates is the Chronicle of Jerome. If one follows the best MS (O) and equates the different eras correctly the evidence provided by Jerome reads:

(i) Sallustius Crispus scriptor historicus in Sabinis Amiterni nascitur: ann. Abr. 1931 = Ol. 173. 3/4 = A.U.C. 669 = 85 B.C.

(ii) Sallustius diem obiit quadriennio ante Actiacum bellum: ann. Abr. 1981 = Ol. 186.1/2 = A.U.C. 719 = 35 B.C.

Scholars have interpreted the data provided by Jerome and the conflicting evidence of the Chronicon Paschale (p. 347, 359 Dindorf) and of the Consularia Constantinopolitana (Mommsen, Chron. Min. 1.214, 217) to produce the dates 86 and 35 (e.g. G. Funaioli, RE I A. 1914; R. Helm, Philologus, Suppl. 21, 2 (1929) 39f.) More recently, G. Perl, Klio 48 (1967) 97ff., by a new interpretation of the term quadriennium has posited the date of death as 34 B.C., a date assumed by J. C. Rolfe, Oxford Class. Dict., ed. 1, 1948 and already proposed by E. Bikermann, REL [Revista des Etudes Latines] 24 (1946) 148, n.1. There is no absolute certainty about the standard dates, since Jerome can be convicted of carelessness and inaccuracy in other particulars of literary history (cf. Syme, 13f.).

If scholars have difficulty with fairly abundant though conflicting evidence for dates of birth and death, the case is even more desperate when it comes to attempts to reconstruct the details of Sallust's infancy, boyhood, education, political training and beliefs, and public career. “Nothing, it must be repeated, can be recovered of Sallust's career and vicissitudes before he stood for the tribunate in the summer of 53” (Syme, 28). In the face of this complete lack of evidence one can merely surmise that well-attested external factors could and might have had influence both on Sallust's career and on his point of view as a writer.

One of the most important of these external factors is the municipal origin of Sallust. Most of the Sabine communities, Amiternum among them, were fully enfranchised before the Social War (L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic 66, 82ff.) and by the historian's time those ennobled by office at Amiternum, including almost certainly the Sallustii, would have been thoroughly Romanized (Earl, Historia 15 (1966) 302ff.). Men of municipal origin must have formed a steadily growing section of the Senate from the beginning of the first century; in the Senate, as enlarged by Caesar, they comprised half of the membership (Syme, P.B.S.R. 14 (1938) 1ff., Roman Revolution ch. 6; T. P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C.-A.D. 14, Oxford, 1971, 8). Nor is the historian the only Sallustius known at Rome at this time. One of the best documented of these is Cicero's friend Cn. Sallustius (Att. 1.3.3, 1.11.1, 11.11.2, 11.17a.1, 11.20.2, 13.50.4, Fam. 14.4.6, 14.11, Q.Fr. 3.4.2-3, 3.5/6.1, Div. 1.59). For other possible Sallustii see Syme, 10f.; Earl, op. cit. 305.

Other external factors which must have had influence on Sallust's career and viewpoint are the effect on the Italian municipia of the Social War; the civil war which led to the dictatorship and proscriptions of Sulla; the fact that Sallust's youth and manhood were passed under the system of oligarchy which Sulla restored; the turbulence and intrigues of the middle sixties; the return of Pompeius Magnus from the East, and the consulship of Julius Caesar.

We know nothing of Sallust's activity in the sixties. His statement that he came early to desire a political career (BC [Bellum Catilinae] 3.3) is too vague to be of use; Earl's theory (op. cit. 302ff.) that he was, like his contemporaries, on military service before his accession to public office is attractive, but in the absence of direct evidence such a theory can only be conjectural. The Invectiva in Sallustium maintains that Sallust spent his youth in wild dissipation. Specific charges, such as being a member of a secret Pythagorean society (Inv. in Sall. 14) where he would take part in strange cult rites, including the sacrifice of boys (cf. Cicero, in Vat. 14); accusations of adultery with Milo's wife (Varro apud Gell.17.18) or with other matrons of Rome are imputations which were practically obligatory in the political invective of the period. Many of the charges, moreover, do not stand up well to examination (Syme, 278ff.).

If 86 is the true date of Sallust's birth he could have been quaestor in 55 in the second consulship of Pompeius and Crassus. The sole authority for supposing that Sallust was quaestor is the Invectiva in Sallustium 5.15, a product of the imperial schools of rhetoric and ascribed (Diomedes, 1.387.4K) to a certain Didius; there is no direct attestation for the quaestorship (Broughton, MRR 2.217). Sallust's first attested office was the tribunate of 52. While it is to be conceded that membership of the Senate could have come with the tribunate (Syme, 28; Earl, op. cit. 306), the theory that Sallust was never quaestor is improbable. This does not follow from the fact that the only positive evidence for it is unreliable. The quaestorship was the normal first step in a public career, so that its omission in any particular case demands specific negative evidence.

The evidence for Sallust's tribunate (Asconius 37, 44-45, 49C) also gives some hint at his possible political allegiance at that time, and helps to combat a common assumption that Sallust was from first to last a partisan of Caesar. The year 52 opened without consuls, but three candidates were in the field. The Optimates supported T. Annius Milo; Pompeius' candidates were Q. Metellus Scipio and P. Plautius Hypsaeus, who were also strongly supported by P. Clodius then a candidate for the praetorship. Asconius (33-52C passim) names the tribunes Pompeius Rufus and Munatius Plancus as active in hostility to Milo and Cicero and as chief inciters to riot and arson after the murder of Clodius. In addition, Asconius (37, 49, 51C) names Sallust as active in support of his fellow tribune Pompeius Rufus and as cooperating with Plancus (37, 44, 51C). It could be surmised from this that Sallust was on the side of Clodius and Pompeius (Syme, 31f. Earl, op. cit., 310). All three were certainly opposed to Milo, but Sallust's opposition to him is not attested before Clodius' death, and he was allegedly reconciled to him later (Asconius 37C). Roman politics often placed ill-assorted people temporarily on the same side (e.g. Pompeius and Clodius) and there is nothing to show what Sallust's motives in 52 were. His transference to the camp of Caesar is to be accounted for by the vicissitudes of political intrigue. One should perhaps mention in this context Sallust's expulsion from the Senate in 50 (Cassius Dio, 40.63.4) and the widely known fact that Caesar was prepared to accept allies without question (Syme, Roman Revolution 66-67, Sallust 35). Expulsion from the Senate was normally justified by reasons or pretexts of public or private misbehaviour. Cassius Dio gives no hint of such allegations against Sallust. The censorship was used as a weapon in party strife and Sallust may have thus paid the penalty for actions and attitudes during his tribunate. See further Syme, 33ff. Whatever the reason, expulsion from the Senate represented a severe setback to his career and is probably alluded to in ‘multa mihi advorsa fuere’ of BC 3.3.

Sallust is next heard of as commanding one of Caesar's legions in Illyricum late in 49 and failing to stave off the capitulation of the Caesarians under C. Antonius on the island of Curicta (Orosius, 6.15.8). For nearly two years there is no mention of him in history. He re-emerges in 47, when as praetor-elect (Broughton TAPhA [Transactions of the American Philological Association] 79 (1948) 76ff.) he is reported to have failed in a mission to quell a mutiny among the Caesarian troops in Campania, troops awaiting the invasion of Africa (Appian, BC 2.92; Cassius Dio, 42.52. 1-2).

As praetor in 46, Sallust was active in Caesar's African campaign where he demonstrated his administrative and executive ability in securing much needed supplies from the island of Cercina (Bell. Afr. 8.3, 34.1, 34.3). He was rewarded in singular fashion. After the battle of Thapsus Caesar took the greater part of Numidia away from King Juba and turned it into a Roman province, Africa Nova; Sallust was appointed its first governor with the rank of proconsul (Bell. Afr. 97.1; Appian, BC 2.100; Cassius Dio, 43.9.2). Since he received proconsular imperium early in June Sallust must have been praetor pro consule for the remainder of the year—an appointment noteworthy because of its comparative rarity in the Republican period (Mommsen, Staatsrecht 2.647-650). His re-admission to the Senate was a consequence of this praetorship.

According to Cassius Dio (43.9.2) Sallust so misgoverned his province that he had to face charges of extortion on his return to Rome. These charges were not pressed, and Dio's report (43.47.4) that the suppression of bribery charges in 45 B.C. were due to bribes paid to Caesar for this indulgence suggests that this may have been the case with Sallust (cf. Inv. in Sall. 19; E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie und das Prinzipat des Pompeius (1922) 424; W. Allen jr., Stud. in Phil. 51 (1954) 7f.). Whatever the truth of these charges and stratagems it is clear that Sallust was spared the humiliation of a second expulsion from the Senate and retained riches vast enough to enable him to maintain a house and grounds (the latter to become famous in imperial times as the Horti Sallustiani) on a palatial scale. It is also clear that somehow he secured a highly favoured and very strong position in his later years, since he both survived the proscriptions unscathed and wrote with remarkable outspokeness on the pernicious effects of potentia paucorum. While it is impossible to say with certainty what effect the assassination of Caesar in 44 had on Sallust, it is probable that it confirmed his resolve to abandon political ambition and devote himself to literary pursuits—a quo incepto studioque me ambitio mala detinuerat, eodem regressus statui … perscribere (BC 4.2).

Apart from his writings which occupied the final years of his life, nothing is known for certain concerning Sallust down to his death in 35 B.C. In spite of the acceptance by reputable scholars, e.g. E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie, 164; L. Pareti, La congiura di Catilina (1934) 204, of the assertion by Jerome (Adv. Iovinianum, 1.48) that Sallust married Cicero's divorced wife, Terentia, this engaging suggestion should be dismissed as a fabrication. On the historian's death, a grandson of his sister inherited the name through adoption (Tactitus, Ann.3.30.1).

2. THE WRITINGS OF SALLUST

Three historical works are ascribed without dispute to Sallust. Two of these we possess complete, the monographs Bellum Catilinae and Bellum Jugurthinum; of his third and main work, the Historiae, we possess only fragments, four orations and two letters, excerpted from the main work and transmitted in a separate edition with the speeches from the monographs, and about five hundred smaller fragments. These reveal a structural organisation into five Books, the last of which, from internal evidence, is manifestly incomplete and we may fairly assume that the author died before he could bring his narrative down to the termination he had planned for it. As it exists, the Historiae indicates a treatment of the years 78-67 B.C.; the arrangement of the fragments by B. Maurenbrecher (C. Sallusti Crispi Reliquiae: I. Prolegomena (1891); II. Fragmenta (1893) is generally accepted, though modifications are occasionally proposed (e.g. Bloch, Didascaliae, Studies Albareda (1961) 61ff.).

There is less agreement about the other works which are sometimes ascribed to Sallust. Scholars have long been occupied with the question of the genuineness of the two Epistulae ad Caesarem senem, which are transmitted in a manuscript (V) along with the letters and speeches from the historical works. Copious literary, linguistic and historical arguments have been adduced both for and against the authenticity of these works. The present state of the question seems to be that many Continental scholars (e.g. Büchner, Egermann, Funaioli, Sangiacomo, Skard, Steidle, Vretska) are strongly in support of Sallustian authorship for the Epistulae and some even include the far more dubious Invectiva in Ciceronem as part of the Sallustian corpus. Some Continental scholars (e.g. Dihle, Fuchs, Jachmann, Latte), Fraenkel and most British scholars remain unconvinced. On this topic of authenticity see especially Syme, 314ff., Appendix II, “The False Sallust” and the bibliography cited there. His refutation of arguments for authenticity based on such criteria as language and style, personality of author, historical context is wholly convincing. Consequently citation of these spuria in the Commentary is used only to illustrate matters of thought or style; the passages have little intrinsic value and are of far less interest than echoes of Sallust in Tacitus or Velleius Paterculus.

3. THE BELLUM CATILINAE

(i) Date: Indications as to the date of publication of Sallust's first monograph are few and very general in character. Sallust's attitude to Caesar and Cato in ch.54 and the word fuere in 53, 6 show that both Caesar and Cato were dead, which provides us with a terminus post quem of 44 B.C. The date of death, 35 B.C., gives us a terminus ante quem. Otherwise we have merely the relative dating which places the Bellum Catilinae probably earlier than the Bellum Jugurthinum and both of these works earlier than the Historiae. The statements of BC, ch. 4 seem to imply that his treatment of the Catilinarian conspiracy was Sallust's first work; the words of BJ [Bellum Jugurthinum] 95, 2: alio loco de Sullae rebus dicturi sumus, may refer to a contemplated work, the Historiae. The lack of precise indication has given scope for scholars to indulge their theories and to make the date fit in with what they conceived to be the purpose of the monograph. L. Wohleb, Phil. Woch. 48 (1928), 1242ff., interpreting the tone of the prologues of both monographs, claims that the Bellum Catilinae was begun before the death of Caesar and finished during Cicero's lifetime and that the Bellum Jugurthinum was written when the Second Triumvirate was imminent but not yet established, i.e. before November 43 B.C. Both O. Gebhardt, Sallust als politischer Publizist während des Bürgerkrieges, Diss. Halle, 1920, 20 and Büchner, 109 postulate completion before the death of Cicero. The Schwartz thesis that the first monograph was a response to Cicero's de Consiliis Suis would imply that it was written under the Second Triumvirate; Cicero's ἀνἐχδοτον (Att. 2.6.2, 14.17.6; Cassius Dio, 39.10.1-3; Plutarch, Crass. 13.2-3), a secret history not published until after Cicero's death, was a denunciation of Crassus and Caesar. An extreme formulation of Schwartz's thesis is that of A. Rosenberg, Einleitung und Quellenkunde zur römischen Geschichte (1921) 174f., who asserts that Sallust's work was commissioned in 42 by Octavianus to combat the influence of de Consiliis; somewhat similar is the thesis of M. Büdinger, SBAkW [Sitzungberichte der Oestersicheischen Akademie der Wissenschaften], Wien, 123 (1891), 20ff., who held that Sallust was induced to write his monograph because the deeds of the Triumvirs so resembled Catiline's programme. H. M. Last, Mélanges Marouzeau (1948) 360, maintaining that the work was made available to a world still under the shadow of the dictator's death, presumes publication at the latest soon after the beginning of 42. Besides appealing to the contemporary situation, attempts to settle on a plausible dating also adduce changes and development in the opinions of the author, in particular more maturity, more confidence and sharper comment in the prologue of the Bellum Jugurthinum. None of these arguments is completely compelling. Syme (128f.) accepts the view of G. Boissier, La conjuration de Catilina (1905), 10, that the work was probably begun in 42 and not finished before 41. Any precise dating remains, ultimately, unattainable.

(ii) Sources: Sources for the facts upon which Sallust bases his account of Catiline's conspiracy were especially abundant. But there is no clear indication given by Sallust as to the authorities he followed, and even more than most ancient historians he is extremely reticent about his literary obligations.

That he relied to some extent on the memories of living men is indicated by his reporting of rumours current at the time, details which he himself is not prepared to vouch for (see on 14.7, 17.7, 19.4, 22.1, 48.7). Sallust had known many of the leading figures; in 48.9 he quotes an assertion of Crassus, he had close contact with P. Sulla, who had commanded Caesar's right wing at Pharsalia and who died at the end of 46. Men who had either played a part in the conspiracy or were intimately connected with those that had participated survived the Civil War, e.g. C. Antonius, Messala Rufus, close friend of P. Sulla, L. Calpurnius Bestia, tribune of the plebs in 62. Above all, Sallust had contact with the most intelligent man of the age, the literary and cultivated Caesar.

Documents were also available—published speeches such as those of Cicero (on Cato's see Plutarch, Cato Min. 23; Cic. 21); records of the proceedings of the Senate (cf. Cicero, pro Sulla 42); memoirs of public men of the period; letters which outlived their writers. Sallust does indeed present documents of a kind—a letter from Manlius to Marcius Rex (ch. 33) which Sallust implies is not an exact copy of the original; a letter from Catiline to Catulus (ch. 35) and one from Lentulus to Catiline (44.5), both introduced with the word exemplum, the second also available in another version by Cicero (in Cat. 3.12), and both, therefore, probably genuine.

But Sallust's main source was probably the writings of Cicero. Extant works which contain material of interest and of immediate relevance are the four orations against Catiline which, together with eight other speeches delivered in 63, were prepared by Cicero for publication in 60 (Att. 2.1.3); the speech in Toga Candida, delivered a few days before the elections in 64 and preserved in fragmentary form by Asconius (82-94C); the speech in defence of Licinius Murena in November 63 and the pro Sulla of the following year. We cannot, unfortunately, measure the value of works by Cicero which are no longer extant or which, like his Latin poem de Consulatu Suo, are preserved in fragments too meagre to be of use (HRR 2.xvi). They include verse eulogies of his consulship in Greek (Att. 2.1.3) and Latin (Att. 1.19.10); the explosive de Consiliis Suis (cf. p. 7); the poem de Temporibus Suis (Fam. i.9.23, Q. Fr. 2.16.4 etc.; the ‘Ηραχλείδειον aliquid (Att. 15.4.3, 15.27.2) which was probably a discussion of Caesar's assassination; a history of his times (Cassius Dio, 46.21; Plutarch, Cic. 41). See further K. Büchner in RE VIIA.1245, 1250, 1267. Finally, one should not overlook works concerning Cato, viz. Brutus' Cato (Att. 13.46.2), Cicero's Laus Catonis (ibid.), Caesar's Anticato (Att. 12.40.1).

Concerning this apparent abundance of source material it should be noted that while Cicero's material was undoubtedly useful, it was also singularly one-sided. What Sallust needed was diversity of source material and it is doubtful whether he had it—the likelihood of anyone having written or spoken well of Catiline is very remote. Sallust incorporates without question the elements of exaggeration and propaganda which impregnated the speeches of Cicero and the portrait which emerges of the man and his activity is a hostile one. The story as presented in the sources has provoked through the centuries a flood of literature, either accepting the picture of Catiline as a born conspirator or defending him as one of Rome's few genuine reformers, champion of a new social order; from other viewpoints Catiline is presented as the instrument of leading political figures or as the precursor of Julius Caesar, a man aiming at dictatorial power. See Z. Yavetz, Historia 12 (1963) 485-87. Consideration must be given to the bias of the sources, but it is no solution to aver that the conspiracy was largely a figment of Cicero's imagination, an affair invented for his own Machiavellian purposes (e.g. K. H. Waters, Historia 19 (1970) 195ff.). The composition and aims of the conspiracy, the social and economic problems that called it forth, the reaction of leading men in the state to the threat it posed cannot simply be dismissed as non-events.

The monograph form involves more than a mere reporting of events. It gives room for analysis of character and event, and, in Sallust's case, for the casting and shaping of both motive and action into the framework of a moral viewpoint. This aspect is particularly apparent in the long introduction with which he prefaces his account (Appendix I) and in the speeches which form an important element of his narrative. Such a treatment involves ideas and expressions which go back ultimately to the writings of the Greek philosophers and orators who dealt with the theme of man and the state, and a familiarity with the Latin writers who had dealt with the theme of Roman greatness in terms congenial to the point of view which Sallust had adopted. The Commentary, in sections such as those mentioned, shows clearly that Sallust was familiar with the writings of Plato, Posidonius, Demosthenes, Xenophon, Thucydides and others among the Greeks, and that like most Romans of his class his knowledge of the great Latin writers who preceded him, notably Ennius and Cato, was profound.

(iii) Form and Structure: Sallust's deliberate choice of the monograph form for his first two historical works (statui res gestas populi Romani carptim … perscribere—BC 4.2) involves two points of importance in any consideration of his work. Firstly it indicates a rejection of the alternative forms of writing history which were open to him from the Roman theory and practice of his period; secondly his choice of form had a profound effect, one which is sometimes overlooked, both on the style and structure of his works. Our remarks on these features are here, naturally, confined to the Bellum Catilinae.

The bulk of Roman history-writing prior to Sallust is represented by the work of the annalists. General Roman opinion concerning this is probably reflected in the verdict of Cicero (de Orat. 2.51ff.) that history was a mere compilation of annals (annalium confectio) which demanded no prose style and whose chief claims to admiration were accuracy and brevity. Cato, Fabius Pictor and Piso are cited as examples. Other forms of history-writing—e.g. outline history (Atticus, Velleius, Florus) and memoirs (Rutilius, Sulla)—would not loom large in Sallust's thinking. He was, however, undoubtedly influenced by the work of such writers as Licinius Macer, who died in 66 and had written on the early Republic, incorporating into his narrative, by his vicious attacks on the aristocracy, the conflicts of his own life and times (HRR I. CCCXLVIII ff.; F. Münzer, RE XIII.419ff.) and above all by Cornelius Sisenna (HRR I. CCCXXXIV ff.; cf. E. Badian, JRS [Journal of Roman Studies] 52 (1962) 50f.). Sisenna who died in 67 also chose contemporary history and is credited by Sallust as doing so optume et diligentissume omnium (BJ 95.2); of all the predecessors he is the historian most akin to Sallust. By contemporary Roman standards Macer is censured for loquacitas and Sisenna, although acknowledged as the best historian to date, is yet only credited with an achievement described as puerile quiddam, in that he simply imitates the Greek Clitarchus. To raise Roman historiography to the level attained by the Greeks a higher form of composition is needed (Leg. 1.55ff.). Instead of the dry and factual listing of the annalists, of the diffuseness of contemporary historiography with its importation of the poetic, the archaic and the unusual in style and language, what was needed was the type of prose composition practised by an orator of the first rank—genus orationis fusum atque tractatum et cum lenitate quadam aequaliter profluens (de Orat. 2.64; cf. Orat. 66). Sallust rejected all three. See A. H. McDonald, JRS 65 (1975) 46ff.

His decision to write a monograph rather than annals is not, however, a complete break with tradition. See L. Canfora, “Il programma di Sallustio”, Belfagor 27 (1972) 137ff. The form had already been domesticated in Roman historiography by Coelius Antipater, who received somewhat grudging praise from Cicero (de Orat. 2.54, Leg. 1.6). To cope with the demands of this form which should ideally (cf. Cicero's letter to Lucceius, Fam. 5.12) embody drama, colour, concentration on a leading personality caught up in the vicissitudes of a highly-charged political situation, Sallust forged a style of his own. In doing so he avoided the Hellenistic vein of historiography which also places personality at the centre of events, but embellishes its narrative with the vivid portrayal of pathos, horror, the erotic and the supernatural, with its inclusion of dreams, oracles and omens. The style framed by Sallust was one which incorporated some of the elements traditional in Roman historiography, but which also used in its formulation the practice and example of writers hitherto ignored by Roman historians, in particular Thucydides and Cato the elder, and which ultimately and inevitably reflects the influence of his own complex personality and experience.

The influence on Sallust of the great Greek historian, Thucydides, is palpable and pervasive. Velleius Paterculus (2.30.2) calls Sallust aemulus Thucydidis. They share the same basic view of human nature and agree in the way in which they considered history should be written—a method involving concentration, selection, omission, with an emphasis on politics and analyses of human behaviour within this field. In particular, the Thucydidean influence is reflected in the structure and style of the Bellum Catilinae.

Scholarly treatments of the structure of this monograph reach no unanimity concerning the sections into which the work should be divided nor concerning the connection between the sections so distinguished. The most important of these treatments are R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen, Leipzig, 1906, 84-9; R. Ullmann, Rev. phil. 42 (1918) 5ff.; K. Latte, NWzA, 2R.H4, Leipzig, 1935, 30ff.; K. Bauhofer, Die Komposition der Historien Sallusts, Diss. München, 1935, 45ff.; K. Vretska, “Der Aufbau des Bellum Catilinae”, Hermes 72 (1937) 202-222; K. Büchner, Sallust, Heidelberg, 1960; W. Steidle, Historia, Einzelschrift 3 (1958) 1ff.; F. Giancotti, Strutture delle monografie di Sallustio e di Tacito, Messina d'Anna, 1971.

I have not hesitated, therefore, to construct this Commentary on what I consider to be a straightforward division of the monograph into reasonably coherent sections. An analysis of the structure I have assumed can be presented as follows:

1.1—4.5. Prologue

• 1.1—4.2 justification of author's decision to write history;
  • 4.3—4.4 announcement and justification of choice of subject;
  • 4.5 transitional;
• 5.1—5.8 Character-sketch of Catiline.
• 5.9 General justification for excursus on Roman history.
• 6.1—13.5 Excursus on Roman History
• 6.—9.5 the rise of Rome.
• 10.1—13.5 the decline of Rome.

14.1—16.5 Catiline's associates.

17.1—7 First meeting of the conspirators.

18.1—19.6 Digression—the First Catilinarian Conspiracy.

20.1—22.3 The first speech of Catiline and its effects.

23.1—26.5 Activity between June 64 and the elections in the summer of 63.

ch. 25 Digression—portrait of Sempronia.

27.1—36.3 The progress of the conspiracy down to the flight of Catiline.

36.4—39.5 Description of the current political situation in Rome.

39.6—47.4 The Allobroges and the conspiracy.

48.1—55.6 The suppression of the conspiracy in Rome.

• 51.1—52.36 the debate of December 5.
• 53.1—54.6 Caesar and Cato compared.

56.1—61.9 The end of the conspiracy.

ch. 58 The second speech of Catiline.

Irrespective of what precision of sectioning one may aim at in analysing the structure of the Bellum Catilinae one important aspect of Latin historiography should be borne in mind. From Greek historiography it inherited the view that the task of the historian was to narrate and explain events, and the explanation was fundamentally to be given in terms of the character of those who participated in those events. Sempronius Asellio (c. 125 B.C.) shows his grasp of this distinguishing feature of real history as against the mere compilation of facts represented by annales in his words: Nobis non modo satis esse video, quod factum esset, id pronuntiare, sed etiam, quo consilio quaque ratione gesta essent, demonstrare (apud Gell. 5.18.8). A historian is forced to make a selection of events; this selection will inevitably be influenced by his view of the nature of the explanation required. Herein lies Sallust's excuse for his long moralising introduction, his decision to include portraits of Catiline, and of Sempronia, and the famous comparison of Caesar and Cato, his inclusion of such digressions as the First Catilinarian Conspiracy (chs. 18-19), his manner of underlining and explaining events by means of speeches, the explanatory function of which is deepened by the incorporation of gnomic generalisations. Herein, too, lies the explanation for the apparent neglect of social and economic problems, the omission of or the re-arrangement of incident and background material. The commentary on the various sections mentioned above will further elucidate the points made in general terms here. See in particular the excursus “The Roman view of historical explanation” in G. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman poetry, Oxford, 1968, 619ff.

Such a view of the historian's task, viz. that selection of material and the emphasis given to character and event is dictated by the historian's own view of the underlying significance of his material, is basically the legacy of Thucydides, who laid down the principle that historical events ultimately depend on human nature and that events in the future will bear a varying degree of similarity to events in the past because of this constant factor (1.22.4). Hence the utility of historiography. Thucydides' influence on Sallust, as already noted, is very marked. Speaking in more concrete terms about structure one could say that the speeches in the Bellum Catilinae, both in their arrangement and content, owe much to the practice of Thucydides and that digressions such as the treatment of the First Conspiracy and the comparison of Caesar and Cato are inspired by digressions such as that on Peisistratus in Thucydides 6.54-59 and the treatment of Pausanias/Themistocles in 1.128-138.

(iv) Style: The Thucydidean influence is also evident in Sallust's style. Ancient critics were struck in particular by the fact that Thucydides deliberately fashioned a style of his own, a style which is marked by poetical language, variety of grammatical usage, inconcinnity, rapidity (Dion. Hal., De Thuc. 24). Sallust shows resemblances in the devices he adopted in forging his own style—a selective vocabulary involving poetical and archaic words, unusual grammatical turns, inconcinnity, rapidity of thought and expression entailing compression and omission. The Latin style he produced must also in part be ascribed to the influence of Cato, who provided not only the high moral outlook and veneration for old Roman virtues which coincided with Sallust's own viewpoint, but also the elements of an old-fashioned Latin style. These various elements are fused into a structure of which the prominent feature is antithesis, a form of expression which may well reflect the personality of the writer.

The comments of ancient critics, who were quick to note that Sallust's language and syntax differ conspicuously from those of contemporary prose, tend to concentrate on specific aspects of this new style. The feature which drew most attention was his brevitas and a related element of abruptness, described as abruptum sermonis genus by Quintilian (4.2.25); Gellius (3.1.6) describes the author as subtilissimus brevitatis artifex; Seneca the elder comments on this feature: nihil demi sine detrimento sensus potest (Contr. 9.1.13) and the younger Seneca talks of amputatae sententiae et verba ante expectatum cadentia (Ep. 114.17), noting both the brevity and the abruptness of the Sallustian sentence, his avoidance, in general, of the periodic structure of his era. Sentence structure in Sallust is characterised by a striving after variatio, the product of which is commonly inconcinnitas. It is marked by the employment of such devices as asyndeton, parataxis, hyperbaton, chiasmus, either separately or in combination.

Asyndeton of three or more words is a common feature, e.g. 3.3 audacia largitia avaritia; cf. 9.2, 11.2, 11.6, 14.2, 16.2, 21.2, 54.4, 59.5. It tends to occur where an especially forcible description is looked for. It can be a matter of synonyms, e.g. 59.5 appellat hortatur rogat, or a repetition of slogans (e.g. 11.2) which thereby embraces the whole range of the concept under consideration. The individual constituents of such slogan groups are usually well established in the work and recur again and again. In such combinations it is the totality rather than the separate ingredients which, is important. Asyndetic lists, the first pair of words without copula, the second with atque, are of frequent occurrence, often combined with chiasmus, e.g. 6.1, 10.2, 12.2, 20.7, 51.1, 52.3.

Sallust uses various types of parataxis to avoid a periodic structure. Thus at 2.1 we have an explanatory clause rendered by means of a parenthesis introduced by nam. Only one other such example is to be found in this monograph, at 47.4 (parenthesis without nam at 30.4) but it occurs more frequently in Bell. Jug. e.g. 12.3, 37.4, 90.1. The use of nam, as of sed, is one of the prominent features of Sallustian style. For details see R. M. Frazer, CPh. [Classical Philology] 56 (1961) 251-252. At 3.3 ibique illustrates parataxis by the use of copulative particles, cf. 5.2, 20.1 (atque ibi), while at 7.3 we have tanta cupido gloriae incesserat (cf. 36.5, BJ 84.3), the use of an explanatory principal clause instead of a subordinate causal clause. Very similar to this is epiphonema, the use of an exclamatory concluding clause, e.g. 7.5 virtus omnia domuerat, while the omission of the causal conjunction in such sentences as 39.4 neque illis … licuisset, produces a like result. Parataxis by change of construction is also frequent. Thus at 5.2 with huic fuere … ibique … exercuit there occurs a change of subject, a feature repeated at 5.6 hunc … invaserat … quicuqam pensi habebat. At 16.2 confisus … simul quod … et quod we have change of construction involving a participle and a causal clause; cf. 40.1, BJ 25.5, 43.5, 100.4. At 8.1 ea occurs an example of his practice of repetition of subject by means of is, ea, id; cf. 12.5 (id demum), 14.3 (ii), 20.4 (ea demum), 37.4 (ea vero), 58.16, BJ 63.7 etc. The pronoun is generally accompanied by demum or vero. Hyperbaton, inversion of the customary or expected order of words or phrases, is used to add emphasis to a word or concept. Thus at 6.7 eo modo … animum humanum emphasis is given to immutato more; at 20.14 libertas is similarly emphasised; cf. 8.5, 17.5, 20.14. This effect is also achieved by the use of asyndetic sententiae such as 52.4 capta urbe nihil fit reliqui victis, involving omission of nam or sed; cf. 51.3, 52.6, 52.18, 52.29, 58.14, BJ 10.4, 85.43. Chiasmus, “a conscious element of his style” (R. B. Steele, Chiasmus in Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus and Justinus, Diss. Baltimore 1892) is illustrated at 5.4 satis eloquentiae sapientiae parum. Sometimes it seems to be used to avoid a rhyming effect, as above; cf. also 10.6, 20.13, 58.1. Asyndetic lists are often arranged in chiastic form, e.g. 6.1, 10.2, 15.5, 20.7, 59.5, 61.9, while in other lists the element of chiasmus is only just avoided, e.g. 12.2, 51.1, 52.3, 52.14.

The inconcinnitas of Sallust's sentence structure shows itself particularly in his reluctance to give corresponding parts of sentences a similar formulation. The triple form of the object of disserere at 5.9 is a notable example of his fondness for variety of construction, a feature which is most evident in his use of introductory words like pars … alii (e.g. 2.1). It manifests itself also in a variation in the use of connective particles, e.g. non … aut … neque … neque at 13.3; cf. BJ 18.2, 72.2, 85.23, Hist. 1.136M. In 14.2 Sallust produces for the first time a close approximation of the more normal periodic structure of his time, but his use of a variety of copulae (quicumque … quique … praeterea … ad hoc) still reflects the somewhat jerky style he affected. A similar construction marks his listings in 17.3-5, 37.5. Elsewhere he uses praeterea many times (e.g. 40.6, 58.8) item (27.4), simul (e.g. 19.2) and especially ad hoc (e.g. 30.6) to avoid a compactness of periodic structure by the technique of an apparent afterthought, which gives the impression that the author had not properly worked out his thought when he began his sentence and was forced, as it were, to append an addendum. His occasional preference for the uncommon positioning of the attributive adjective in such expressions as alienum aes grande (14.2), designati consules (18.2), homo novus (23.6) has also been taken as part of his inconcinnitas, a deliberate attempt to jolt his readers, accustomed to time-honoured phrasing. In some cases, however, the change of position of the attribute can be accounted for by the presence of a second adjective. See notes on the above passages. This feature also extends itself to the deliberate avoidance of traditional terminology, e.g. 55.1 tresviros for triumviri (capitales) and 55.5 vindices rerum capitalium for triumviri r.c.

The pursuit of variatio frequently involves constructio ad sensum. Thus introductory pars is often connected with masculine adjectives (e.g. pars edocti, BJ 66.4) and plural verbs (e.g. pars … certabant, BC 38.3). At 5.7 quae utraque illustrates the employment of a neuter pronoun to refer back to nouns which are masculine or feminine; cf. 3.4, 10.3, 31.1, BJ 41.3, 85.30. At 7.4 with iuventus, simul ac … erat … discebat … habebant there occurs variation in the number of the verb with a collective noun; cf. 23.6, 56.5; variation in the number of the relative pronoun with a collective noun is illustrated at 56.5. Such constructiones ad sensum are common in both Greek and Latin and belong to all periods. Their special frequency in both Thucydides and Sallust has led Perrochat (28f.) to conclude that Sallust was here influenced in particular by Thucydides. This view is shared by Latte, NWzA 2R.H4 Leipzig, 1935, 16 and by J. Robolski, Sallustius in conformanda oratione etc., Diss. Halle, 1881.

Besides the use of asyndeton, Sallust's brevitas also includes his ellipses, particularly his omission of the verb sum (see on putare, 2.2), occasional brachylogy such as supra ea, 3.2, and his use of polar expressions to convey the whole range of a concept by mentioning its outermost limits, e.g. 11.3 neque copia neque inopia; cf. 11.6, 15.4, 20.7, 30.4, 52.32. Compression of thought also occurs; see, e.g. on 3.2 quae delicta reprehenderis malevolentia et invidia dicta putant; 3.5 eadem quae ceteros fuma; 23.4 quae quoque modo. The effect of these practices, described by Quintilian (10.1.102) as immortalem illam Sallustii velocitatem (cf. id. 10.1.32; Statius, Silv. 4.7.55; Sidon. Apoll. Carm. 2.190, 23.152; Apuleius, Apol. 95; Macrobius, Sat. 5.1.7) provides the same air of breathlessness, of hastening on to more important things such as is implied, also by Quintilian (10.1.73), of Thucydides, who is described as densus et brevis et semper instans sibi.

Also connected with brevitas is a feature which underlies both the structure and the style of the monograph. The opening segment of the Bellum Catilinae (1.1—1.4) introduces us to the device of antithesis which controls the elements of the shortest sentences and governs the disposition of larger segments in relation to each other. The importance of antithesis in Sallust's mode of expression is most clearly exemplified in the excursus on Roman history, chs. 6-13. This excursus falls into two antithetically connected halves—chs. 6-9 and chs. 10-13. The arrangement by antithesis enables Sallust to leave much actually unsaid. Thus the ideal behaviour of the ancients is always understood to be in contrast to contemporary vileness, and an awareness of the contemporary scene in its turn keeps the picture of the past from being simply an idealization. In the narrative of the conspiracy antithesis also plays its part. Thus the description of the activity of the conspirators prior to the elections of 63 (chs. 23-26) is organised on the antithesis between the activity of Catiline and that of the rest of the conspirators, while in the following narrative, dealing with the progress of the conspiracy in Rome (chs. 27-36.3) the antithesis continues with the contrast between the actions of Catiline and those of Cicero. Antithesis similarly governs the structure of ch. 46.

An unmistakable feature of Sallust's style is his archaism. Asinius Pollio reports that Sallust employed Ateius Philologus to collect antiqua verba et figuras for his use (Suetonius, De gramm. 10), and he was accused of looting the elder Cato's writings (Suetonius, De gramm. 15; Aug. 86). The Catonian influence on Sallust in matters of vocabulary is clear and it is often annotated in the Commentary below. Sallust's rejection of earlier forms of historical composition did not include the discarding of all features of these writings. The writer of history before Sallust exhibited well-marked deviations from standard prose, especially in the use of poetical and archaic words and constructions (see on Sisenna, p. 10). In this case, archaism of forms and vocabulary might, perhaps, be explained partly as a wish to reproduce the flavour of the past which they revered, partly as a conscious or unconscious imitation of the language of ancient documents. Sallust's reasons for adhering to this practice when dealing with events which were almost contemporary cannot be explained exactly in the same way. Archaism happened to be one of the devices he employed in the forging of a style which represented a deliberate disowning of the prose style to which his readers were accustomed.

Archaism manifests itself in Sallust in the fields of vocabulary and construction. As far as vocabulary is concerned it is often impossible to distinguish between the archaic, the colloquial and the poetic, but in discussing the archaic in Sallust's vocabulary one should include (a) words avoided by writers like Cicero and Caesar or used by them in a different sense, e.g. tempestas (7.1), necessitudo (17.2), facundia (53.3), munificentia (54.2), opulentia (6.3), luculentus (31.6), ductare (11.5), vastare (15.4), maturare, patrare (18.8), opitulari (33.2); (b) common words given their archaic meaning, e.g. dolus (26.2), exitium (55.6), facinus (2.9), supplicium (9.2), venenum (11.3), crescere = oriri (10.3); (c) archaic combinations and alliterative phrases, a distinctly Catonian device, e.g. asper … arduus (7.5), modus-modestia (11.4), animus amplior (40.6), hostem ferire (7.6, 60.4), aetem agere (4.1) and words given their older forms, e.g. colos (15.5), lepos (25.5). At 1.4 fluxa atque fragilis illustrates a particularly prominent feature of Sallustian style, viz. his use of alliterative and synonym doublets, elements regarded as archaic and probably poetic in origin, a factor which may in part explain their appearance in a writer so passionately addicted to brevity. E. Skard (SO [Studia Orientalia] 39 (1964) 13-36) lists ninety-four of these doublets. Not all are alliterative and they include the coupling of synonymous adjectives, e.g. 5.1 malo pravoque, 19.1 infestum inimicum, cf. 14.5, 20.3, 27.2, 52.20; of nouns, e.g. 2.3 regum atque imperatorum, 25,3 decus atque pudicitia, cf. 15.5, 33.4, 35.3, 48.1, 61.9; of verbs, e.g. 11.4 rapere trahere, 42.2 festinando agitando; of adverbs, e.g. 51.9 composite atque magnifice. On the archaic nature of this type of exaggeratio see E. Fraenkel, Plautinisches im Plautus, Berlin, 1922, 361; Hofmann, Umgangssprache 93; note, too, the occasional use of figura etymologica, e.g. 35.4 honore honestatos; (d) Sallust's use of frequentatives, of which agitare (e.g. 2.1) is the most common, has been described as a colloquialism (J. Uric, Quatenus apud Sallustium sermonis latini plebei aut cotidiani vestigia appareant, Paris, 1885), but such a usage is generally accepted as an archaism (E. Norden, Ennius u. Vergilius, Leipzig, 1915, 45; P. Schultze, De Archaismis Sallustianis, Diss. Halle, 1871, 67) taken over from Cato by Sallust (E. Wölfflin, ALLG [Archiv fuer Latinische Lexikographic und Grammatik] 4, 206).

Archaism in sentence structure and syntax can be exemplified by 5.2 where ibique is equivalent to in quibus (rebus). This use of an adverb to substitute for pronoun with preposition occurs also at 20.8 (ubi = apud quos), BJ 14.22. The use of -que -que (e.g. 9.3). to connect two words is archaic and poetical. The swing between active and passive in Sallustian sentences illustrates his striving after variatio, and his liking for a passive phrasing (e.g. 10.1, BJ 75.7, 104.5) imparts that air of archaism he looked for. See Ernout, Mém. Soc. Ling. 15, 289ff. and his remark (329ff.) that the frequent omission of the agent corresponds with old Latin usage; cf. Wackernagel, 1.143. The use of quippe with the indicative, e.g. 11.8, 13.2, 19.2, 52.20, the use of quo = ut, without an accompanying comparative, e.g. 11.5, 14.3, 33.1, 38.3, 58.3, the use of postremo without the temporal element being involved, e.g. 47.1, are clearly archaisms. Finally, Sallust's extensive use of historic infinitives, e.g. 6.5, 11.4, 13.3, 17.1, 31.3, 56.4, 60.4 should also be considered one of his archaisms.

Sallust's neologisms also drew the attention of ancient critics, Probus calls him novator verborum (apud Gell. 1.15.18). One can point in the Bellum Catilinae to words not attested earlier than Sallust, e.g. antecapere (13.3), portatio (42.2), incruentus 61.7; he was probably also responsible for the introduction into the language of other composites similar to incruentus, e.g. incelebratus, incuriosus, infecundus, inmutilatus etc. This label of novator may also apply to his revival of old, sometimes forgotten, meanings as with necessitudo etc., mentioned above; Gellius (11.7.2) says nova videri dico etiam ea quae sunt immutata et desita, etsi sunt vetusta. As already remarked, the archaic and the poetical sometimes coincide, and one can note in Sallust the poetical flavour of such words as mortalis, vecordia, profugus, insons.

Syntactical constructions which might be called characteristically Sallustian are the coupling of a principal clause in the present tense with a subordinate clause in the future perfect, e.g. 12.3, 20.9, 51.3, 51.4, 51.24, 58.16; the use of the instrumental modal per, e.g. 7.4, 13.2, 20.2, 20.9, 41.5; the use of an infinitive with verbs which are more usually found with a different construction, e.g. note the rare use of an infinitive after dubitare, in an affirmative sentence (15.2), cf. coniurare in 52.24 and the note on hortari in 5.9; his widening of the use of the historic infinitive by the employment of passive historic infinitives, e.g. fatigari 27.2 and the coupling of finite tenses with the historic infinitive, e.g. 11.4, 13.3, 24.2, 25.5, 48.1, 56.4, 60.4; the alternation of genitive and ablative after egeo (e.g. 1.7) and potior (47.2); the direct accusative after laetari (51.29); the ablative after expers (33.2); the use of in with a neuter adjective in lieu of a simple adjective or adverb, e.g. in incerto 41.1; the neuter abl. sing. of the passive participle used instead of the verbal noun, e.g. consulto … facto 1.6; adjectives used in a passive sense, e.g. innoxii 39.2; the coupling of an adverb and a noun used adverbially, e.g. recte atque ordine 51.4; the gerundive of purpose, e.g. conservandae libertatis 6.7; ire with the supine, e.g. 36.4. More than any other prose writer Sallust uses adverbs as adjectival predicate, e.g. 20.2 frustra, 21.1 abunde, cf. 23.7, 58.9; the same applies to the use of the pluperfect for the aorist perfect, e.g. 24.1, 36.5, 50.4, 56.2; the use of sicuti as equivalent to quasi or tamquamsi, e.g. 28.1, 31.5, 37.5, 38.3, 53.5, is almost confined to Sallust.

Some of the usages referred to above, e.g. constructio ad sensum, variation in number after a collective noun, as well as the infinitive used to explain intention or plan, e.g. 52.24 coniuravere … incendere, and the genitive instead of ablative at 40.5, aliena consili could be explained as imitations of Greek usages. On Grecisms in Sallust see Quintilian 9.3.17; E. Löfstedt, Syntactica 2. 412ff.

Sallust's narrative method naturally varies according to the content and intention of different parts of the work. I have not attempted, therefore, a general discussion of narrative method, but have confined myself to introductory notes on method at key-points in the Commentary, e.g. at 1.1-1.4, at 5.1-8, at ch. 20, at 27-31, at 31.5ff.

Works dealing in some detail with specific features of Sallustian style are: L. Constans, De sermone Sallustiano, Paris, 1880; L. S. Fighiera, La lingua e la grammatica de C. Sallustio Crispo, Savona 1896¹, 1902², 1905³; W. Kroll, “Die Sprache des Sallust”, Glotta 15 (1927) 280-305; E. Skard, Ennius und Sallustius etc. Avhandl. Norske Vid. Ak., Oslo, 1933, 4 (some of the conclusions of which should be treated with caution, cf. S. Cavallin, “Det episka inslaget i Sallustius' stil”, Eranos 35 (1937) 68-101); idem, Sallust und seine Vorgänger, SO Fasc. Suppl. 15 (1956), “Zur sprachlichen Entwicklung des Sallust”, SO 39 (1964) 13-36; R. Syme, Sallust, ch. XIV and App. I.

4. JUDGEMENTS ON SALLUST

Judgements on Sallust have been influenced to some extent by the kind of allegation about his private life and public career which came into currency among ancient writers, but largely by the interpretations put upon the way in which he has presented the historical material of his monographs.

Reports and assumptions of a scandalous private life, of rapacious and extortionate conduct as an official in Africa, of a life of ease and luxury amid the splendour of the house on the Quirinal quickly gave rise to censorious or even shocked expressions concerning the contradiction between the moralising tone of the writings and the reprehensible conduct of the writer. Representative of this view is the comment of Lactantius (2.12.14): servivit foedissimis voluptatibus, suamque ipse sententiam pravitate dissolvit.

The spirit which prompted such charges and the shocked reaction among critics can well be divined from the words of Gellius, reporting a story on the authority of Varro: C. Sallustium scriptorem seriae illius et severae orationis, in cuius historia notiones censorias fieri atque exerceri videmus, in adulterio deprehensum ab Annio Milone loris bene caesum dicit et, cum dedisset pecuniam, dimissum (17.18). They doubted the sincerity of his statement in BC 3.4: animus aspernabatur insolens malarum artium and objected to the self-righteous tone of cum ab reliquorum malis moribus dissentirem (3.5). They felt, not without justification, that they could detect a note of guilt in his strident moralising about luxuria etc. This is an attitude which persisted among scholars of the Renaissance and the problem of the contrast between conduct and writings loomed large in the thinking of 18th century scholarship (cf. F. Schindler, Untersuchungen z. Geschichte des Sallustbildes, Diss. Breslau, 1939, 43ff., App. VI). Traces of it are still to be detected; thus M. L. W. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians, 48, doubts “the probity of the reformed burglar who turned policeman”. See especially Syme, 269ff., 278ff.

Sallust's personality, conduct and experience cannot be divorced from his performance as a writer. It is mainly a question of how far these factors should be allowed to influence judgement on the status of Sallust as a historian. In modern times Sallust has been the object of the most varied judgement on the part of scholars. E. Schwartz in a famous paper, “Die Berichte über die Catilinarische Verschwörung”, Hermes 32 (1897) 554ff. = Ges.Schr. II (1956) 275ff., put forward the view that Sallust was a political pamphleteer, a Caesarian partisan who painted the events of the Catilinarian conspiracy in terms of propaganda favourable to Caesar and carried his partisanship to the extent of changing the actual course of events. This point of view dominated Sallustian scholarship in the succeeding decades, but the statements in E. Meyer's Caesars Monarchie und das Prinzipat des Pompeius, 1918, 352ff., 383ff., 558ff. led to a revision of thought and Sallust began to be viewed as a political thinker and theorist rather than as a party-propagandist. Details of Schwartz's views and the refutation of the more extreme theorizing of his followers (cf. K. von Fritz, TAPhA 74 (1943) 134-168) are examined in the notes to the relevant sections of the text; see e.g. on 31.6 orationem habuit luculentam; 48.4 praeterea se missum a M. Crasso.

After the refutation of the partisan thesis the picture of Sallust that emerged took on two somewhat different aspects. There are some who view Sallust as a historian in whom scholarly intellect and a genuine striving after objectivity are acknowledged (e.g. W. Schur, Sallust als Historiker, 1934). On the other hand attempts have been made to treat Sallust's writings as works of art in the first instance and thereby to explain the many inaccuracies in the monographs. With this point of view of Sallust as an artist, represented, e.g. by Büchner's work on the structure of the Bellum Jugurthinum in Hermes, Einzelschrift 9 (1953), emerged also the view of Sallust as a moralist who is preoccupied with the key-concept of virtus, a thesis which dominates, for instance, the work of V. Pöschl, Grundwerte römischer Staatsgesinnung in den Geschichtswerken des Sallust (1940). Finally there is the view represented by E. Howald, “Sallust”, Vom Geist antiker Geschichtsschreibung (1944), 140ff., who seeks to understand Sallust from the point of view of Greek historiography and analyses the surprisingly strong and conflicting effect on the reader of a complex personality, manifested in the fluency and unique style of the author.

The truth about Sallust, as Syme (2) points out, is not to be discovered in an exclusive pre-occupation with any one of the categories mentioned above. He will be found, as the Commentary, it is hoped, will demonstrate, to have fused into a unity elements which mark him as an artist, a moralist and a politician. His quality as a historian is determined to some extent by the form in which he chose to treat his material. Examined as history, his Bellum Catilinae exhibits manifold defects (Appendix III). Nevertheless, it is still a precious historical document; the social diagnosis by Sallust (esp. 36.4ff.) reveals what might otherwise have escaped record: the widespread discontent throughout Italy, provoked by excessive disparity in the distribution of wealth and the social and economic chaos which was largely the result of the Sullan settlements. The danger to the Republic represented by a Catiline who could count on widespread and variegated support is a symptom of the social and economic ills which ultimately account for the eclipse of the Republican system. As a literary work, the Bellum Catilinae was an epoch-making achievement in Latin literature, whereby a new style and a new manner of looking at history were introduced.

Sallust was highly esteemed by the ancients both as a historian and as a stylist. In spite of the fact that Livy disapproved both of verba antiqua et sordida (Seneca, Contr. 9.2.26) and regarded Sallust's views of mankind and politics with distaste (cf. L. Amundsen, SO 25 (1947) 31ff.), Sallust could not be denied his fame. For Martial he was primus Romana Crispus in historia (14.191.2) and Quintilian made his own reservation concerning the judgement by Servilius Nonianus which he reports in 10.1.102, namely that Sallust and Livy were pares magis quam similes, by pointing out that while Livy was useful for the education of boys, Sallust was the greater historian (2.5.19). Sallust's success in communicating his forceful moral judgements is shown by the influence he exerted on the Christian writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, who found in him powerful confirmation of the views they propounded concerning pagan society. This influence is exemplified above all by Augustine, to whose De Civitate Dei we owe our knowledge of important passages in Sallust's Historiae and for whom Sallust was nobilitatae veritatis historicus (Civ.Dei. 1.5).

But, as we have already noted, it was Sallustian style which was an immediate success and which continued to exert its influence. Seneca provides evidence of what amounted almost to a Sallustmania (Ep. 114.17ff.). The historian was imitated and commented upon by orators, philosophers and grammarians. While his works had considerable influence on the language, style and thought of the historian Velleius Paterculus (cf. A. J. Woodman, “Sallustian influence on Velleius Paterculus”, Hommages à Marcel Renard, I, Brussels 1968, 785-99), what Sallust himself would probably have regarded as the climax of the gloria which was his goal was the compliment paid to him by the imitation of his style and attitude by the great imperial historian, Tacitus. For Tacitus, Sallust was rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor (Ann. 3.30.1); the extent and manner of his imitation of Sallust are discussed by R. Syme, Tacitus (1958) 340ff., Sallust, (1964) 292ff.; cf. E. Löfstedt, Syntactica 2 (1933) 276ff. The attraction which the personality, style and attitudes of Sallust continued to hold for scholars and readers from the Renaissance onwards is illustrated by F. Schindler's dissertation, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Sallustbildes, Breslau, 1939. This attraction is confirmed by the number and variety of the works on Sallust which are reported in modern bibliographies. …

Abbreviations

1. Editions

Ahlberg: Ahlberg, A. W., ed. Teubner, 1919.

Cortius: Kortte, G., ed. Leipzig, 1724.

Dietsch: Dietsch, R., 4th ed., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1876.

Ernout: Ernout, A., 4th ed. Paris, 1960.

Fabri: Fabri, E. W., ed. Nürnberg, 1845.

Gerlach: Gerlach, F. D., ed. Basle, 1870.

Jordan: Jordan, H., 3rd ed. Berlin, 1887.

Kritz: Kritz, J. F., 2nd ed. Leipzig, 1856.

Wirz: Jacobs, R., Wirz, H., and Kurfess, A., 11th ed. Berlin, 1922.

2. Studies on Sallust

Büchner: Büchner, K., Sallust, Heidelberg, 1960.

Earl: Earl, D. C., The Political Thought of Sallust, Cambridge, 1961.

Kroll: Kroll, W., “Die Sprache des Sallust”, Glotta 15 (1927), 280ff.

Perrochat: Perrochat, P., Les modèles grecs de Salluste, Paris, 1949.

Syme: Syme, Sir Ronald, Sallust, California/Cambridge, 1964.

3. Fragments Etc.

References to fragmentary remains of historians, to epitomizers, to grammarians etc. are to standard editions. Thus:

Accius: (298R) Ribbeck, O., Scaenica Romanorum Poesis, 2 vols. 3rd ed. Teubner, 1871-73.

Asconius: (33C) Clark, A. C., Q. Asconii Pediani Commentarii, Oxford, 1907.

Cato: (Orig. 2.33J) Jordan, H., M. Catonis praeter librum de re rustica quae exstant, Lipsiae, 1860.

Charisius: 1.140K Keil, H., Grammatici Latini, 7 vols. and suppl., Hildesheim, 1961.

Ennius: 36V Vahlen, J., Ennianae Poesis Reliquiae, Teubner, 1928.

Festus: (339L) Lindsay, W. M., Festus, Teubner, 1913.

HRR: Peter, H., Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, 2 vols., Teubner, 1967.

Lucilius: (612M) Marx, F., Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae, 2 vols., Teubner, 1904-05.

Nonius: (483L) Lindsay, W. M., Nonius Marcellus, Teubner, 1903.

4. Works of Reference

Bennett: Bennett, C. E., Syntax of Early Latin, 2 vols., Hildesheim, 1966.

Broughton, MRR: Broughton, T. R. S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 2 vols., New York, 1951-52.

CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.

Greenidge: Greenidge, A. H. J., The Legal Procedure in Cicero's Time, Oxford, 1901.

Kühner-Stegmann: Kühner, R. - Stegmann, C., Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, 2 vols., 3rd ed., Leverkusen, 1955.

L-H-S: Leumann, M., Hofmann, J., Szantyr B., Lateinische Grammatik 2. (Handbuch d. Altertumswissenschaft 11, 2) Munich, 1965.

Mommsen, Staatsrecht: Mommsen T., Römisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols., 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1887.

———, Strafrecht: ———, Römisches Strafrecht, Darmstadt, 1955.

Neue-Wagener: Neue, F., Wagener, C., Formenlehre der lateinische Sprache, 3 vols., 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1902.

Ogilvie: Ogilvie, R. M., Commentary on Livy I-V, Oxford, 1965.

RE Real Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Pauly - Wissowa).

Sommer: Sommer, F., Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre, Heidelberg, repr. 1948.

Wackernagel: Wackernagel, J., Vorlesungen über Syntax, Basel, 1924.

Walbank: Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Oxford, vol. I, 1957, vol. II, 1967.

References to periodicals are in line with those given in L'Année Philologique. Sallust's works are referred to as BC, BJ, and Hist. Fragments of the Historiae are quoted according to the edition of Maurenbrecher (M).