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

SALLUST
Sallust determined to forge a prose style for history unlike anything Rome
had known before, and he succeeded where Sisenna, who was led by the same
ambition, had failed. Wanting to be different, Sallust reacted not only against
the style of Cicero, periodic, expansive, and rhythmical, but also against the
movement, dominant in his day, towards standardization of vocabulary,
grammar, and syntax. For such a rebel the end justifies the means. Provided
he can write excitingly and colourfully, Sallust cares little what sources or
devices he resorts to, except that he does not, as some have supposed, readily
employ colloquialisms. Ancient critics recorded the most distinctive features
of his style: archaism, brevity, abruptness, and novelty (see, e.g., Suet.
Gramnt. p. 108 R, Quint. Inst. 4.2.45, 8.3.29, 10.1.32, Gell. 4.15.1). One might
add pure idiosyncrasy, for there is much of that. And he seems willing to
admit or affect Grecisms, from which his contemporaries were shying away.
Altogether he offers a daring pastiche, outlandish and grotesque, pungent
and arresting.
Archaism appears not only in Sallust's choice of words, but also in variety
of construction, where one construction had become normal, and in loose,
paratactic sentence-structure, best paralleled in authors of the earliest period
(e.g. Cato). Since Sallust is writing about recent and nearly contemporary
history, he is plainly not attempting to find archaic clothing for archaic themes,
as Livy may be said to do. His purpose cannot be explained simply. No doubt
he seeks to enhance his expression, to lend it special dignity: the Romans
believed (and we have no reason to doubt) that archaism could have that effect.
Again, he wants to show that he at least will use the abundant riches of older
Latin, which others were increasingly denying themselves. But above all, by
employing parataxis and avoiding the rhythmical patterns beloved by orators,
he would fain appear straightforward and honest, like the most artless of the
old annalists. The trappings of rhetoric do not become a man who professes to
tell the truth bluntly and briefly.
The brevity which Sallust pursued and often attained made a great impression
on Roman readers, to judge by the numerous references to it. For this
quality in particular he was thought to rival Thucydides (see, e.g., Sen. Conn.
9.1.13—14). Of course brevity takes several forms. There is compression of
much thought into few words: Sallust, like Thucydides, can be admirably
pregnant. Then there is haste to tell what has to be told, which results in
selective use of material and excision of detail. In this Sallust is only too adept,
but an imitator, Velleius, surpassed him in precipitancy. Again, there is economy
of expression proper, which consists in omission of connectives, ellipse of
auxiliary verbs, and so on. Sallust is economical, but he does not reject every
superfluity. Indeed certain features of his style make for pleonasm, particularly
the asyndetic lists and alliterating combinations in which he so much delights.
278
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008