Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

SALLUST
known as the 'Catiline'), published after Caesar's death and probably after
Cicero's. The Bellum Iugurthinum (commonly known as the 'Iugurtha')
followed within about two years, if we assume slow but consistent progress in
writing. Then Sallust moved to history on a larger scale, starting his narrative
in 78 B.C. He had reached 67 B.C. by Book 5, which remained incomplete at his
death. The loss of his Histories is grievous indeed, but enough fragments have
come down to us, including speeches, letters, and important parts of the
prooemium, to permit a reasonable understanding of the work's scope and
character.
Evidence of the lively interest which Sallust provoked is afforded by three
spurious writings, all concocted in the rhetorical schools a generation or two
later. The Invective against Cicero, like its companion piece against Sallust,
ascribed to Cicero, is a clumsy imposture, designed to make schoolboys titter,
but the Epistles to the aged Caesar on the state 1 are quite accomplished fabrications.
The author (or authors) made a tolerable, if imperfect, attempt to catch
Sallust's historical style, forgetting that no one with the slightest taste would
have used this style in letters. The Epistles have some slender interest as
sources for the political thought of the early Principate, and they contain some
pointedly expressed maxims of statecraft, still occasionally quoted, but otherwise
they are only worth perusal as exercises in imitation. Surprisingly some
scholars of repute have considered them genuine.
Sallust was the first recognized classic amongst Roman historians, avidly
read, admired and abused, immensely influential on many diverse writers, and
cited more often than any Latin prose author, Cicero alone excepted. But he
was not in any obvious sense a pioneer. Romans had been writing history for
over a century, and the main types were firmly established. Annalists, like
Gellius and Piso, had long since begun to put flesh on the bare bones of tradition.
A few at least, for instance Valerius Antias, were not punctilious about
the truth, if lies would better reinforce a case or divert the reader. These men
took Rome's whole history for their subject, as did Livy who used and antiquated
them. Others chose particular topics, notably Coelius Antipater, who
wrote of the second Punic War, or, like Rutilius Rufus and Cornelius Sisenna,
related contemporary events and their own experiences. An appreciable range
of interests is evident from the start, for Cato the Elder, the father of Latin
historiography, accommodated in his Origins both speculation about the remote
past and outspoken comment on recent history. Altogether there are few areas
into which Sallust's predecessors had not boldly ventured. And they did not
write casually. Even that bare, repetitive, and seemingly artless phraseology
found in fragments of the earlier annalists may have been cultivated as appro-
1
This title is incredible in itself, but, being of uncertain date, cannot be used as an argument
against authenticity.
269
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008