Sallust Is the Saying, \"What

Sallust

Is the saying, "What comes around, goes around," correct? Just look at the times described by historian Caius Sallustius Crispus (Sallust) during the last years of the Roman Republic, and it is easy to see -- "History repeats itself over and over again." The events he describes could easily have happened anytime throughout American history, up to the present. The political infighting, the figurative and literal backstabbing, corruption and even assassination has occurred repeatedly in the United States. Due to Sallust's historical writings, such as Bellum Jugurthinum, which surpassed any other similar literary work at the time, a record exists of this period and all that took place. Sallust left a written heritage that still is as noteworthy today as it was in early Rome, but apparently no one is any the wiser.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In order to understand what was occurring politically during Sallust's lifetime, it is necessary to go back in history before he was born in the county of Sabines in 86 B.C. Anyone who wrote about this time was from the senatorial class rather than the common people. Therefore, they described the Roman republican government as ideal with its checks and balances, monarchy represented by the consuls, aristocracy embodied in the senate, and democracy exercised by the popular assemblies. They all believed that "there had been a strong bond of common interest between aristocrats and people, and in spite of constant strife between the orders in the state, the sword was said not to have been carried into the Roman assembly until the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C.1

According to Taylor

, during this period, Rome was a society where some measure of personal liberty existed for the freeborn, "but not equality." The citizens were divided and subdivided into classes that were based on how much land they owned. Property ownership also determined military service and the citizen vote that was predominantly based on military standing. A major rift existed between the foot soldiers and those who had enough money to ride on horseback, and a man very rarely was able to rise from being a common soldier to becoming an officer.

The Senate of ex-magistrates, who served for life, consisted of officers in the cavalry class and was divided into several different groups based on military office rather than property; in descending order these positions were: consular, praetorian, aedilician, tribunitial, and quaestorian. It was not possible for any senator to speak for himself. Rather, when the residing consul raised a question, the consulars first answered it, and then the praetorians, and so forth. The quaestorians rarely were able to say anything in the Senate

According to Syme,

many people believe that when Sallust was born, the Roman Republic was "turbulent, corrupt, immoral. And some even speak of decadence." Yet, it was nothing like this, argues Syme. It was an era of liberty and vitality and innovation. Political strife resulted in excellent oratory, and the Romans were enjoying prosperity. Syme adds that "Sallust himself is partly to blame" for this negative view, because "he interpreted a process of economic change and political adjustment in terms of morals; and he fell easy prey to conventional notions about old Roman virtue"

Syme does admit that there was political strife when Sallust was growing up. This was during the First Tivirate of Pompey, Crassus and Caese, when a feud was brewing between the politician Clodius Pulcher, who was recognized for his attacks against the popularists, and Titus Annius Milo and Marcus Tullius Cicero. When Clodius was a tribune, he introduced a law that would exile any person who killed a Roman citizen without a trial. Cicero had executed several Catiline members because of a conspiracy. There was no doubt that Clodius enacted this law specifically because of Cicero

Although Cicero said that he was exempt from punishment, he lost support, even from Pompey, and was sent into exile. Then Clodius proposed another law that said Cicero could not come within 400 miles of Italy, and that all his property would be confiscated. Clodius purchased this property in someone else's name. He also enacted several laws that increased his political standing.

In 57 B.C., the tides turned again, and a tribune proposed that Cicero be recalled. "The Italians -- particularly, of course, the richest of them, who valued Cicero's tireless defense of private property -- came in throngs"

. Cicero boasted that it was not only shops, but also- municipalities who had elected him consul that now voted for his restoration. Clodius tried to prevent this decree, but Milo held him back with armed support. Clodius assaulted Cicero, set fire to his brother's house and impeached Milo for inciting riots. Clodius was not able to follow through on his threats about the decree, because of the violence, but Milo continued to hold a grudge. When Milo was running for the consulship and Clodius for the praeorship, the two men fought in the Roman streets with armed gangs. Clodius died/was assassinated depending on who relates the history. The Senate then voted to have Pompey take Julius Caesar's place, but the tribunes blocked the vote.

SALLUST'S BACKGROUND

In the meantime, Sallust was apparently living a very wild youth that some say ended his father's life. In Catiline (iii.3-5),

Sallust said it was only ambition that drove him, and that he had eagerly applied himself to his studies during this time. Rolfe writes that many of the accusations made about Sallust were "gossip" because of Sallust's later criticisms of Pompey

(x). Sallust's young adulthood passed during the 30 years of shaky peace that took place under the oligarchic system that Sulla had restored.

During his education in Rome, Sallust possibly witnessed the quasi-peaceful revolution of 70B.C. when the consuls Popeius and Crassus overthrew some of the ordnances of Sulla. Sallust also probably saw the ups and downs in the 60s B.C., which included the tribunes' bills and prosecution of the tribunes, harsh competition at the elections and the threat of violence. Then came the Catilina conspiracy, the return of Popeius Magnus from the east, the dynasts' compact in 60B.C. And the consulship of Caesar.

Sallust said that he entered Roman politics at an early age. He attained the quaestorship and then in 52 B.C., became tribune of the commons and joined those against Cicero and Milo when Clodius was killed.

Two years later, Sallust was expelled from the Senate for "charges made against him which, on that occasion need not be taken too seriously.

" Sallust was working behind the scenes for his own rise to power. Caesar reappointed him to a questorship, and he was back in the Senate again. In 48 B.C., he commanded a Caesar legion in Illyicum and then was sent to quiet the rebelling legions in Campania; both times he was unsuccessful.

In 46B.C., Sallust became a practor, successfully sailed to Circina and stole the enemies' stores. Caesar rewarded Sallust with the title of proconsular governor of the entire province of Numidia and Africa.

Although other men with more experience were in line for this position, "the motives behind Caesar's choice are a theme to tempt speculation, and perhaps to baffle enquiry. He must have discerned ability in Sallust…Sallust, though nowhere signalized in the field, proved his value in supply and transport. The first governor of Africa Nova needed some capacity for organization.

Sallust returned back home to an embarrassing situation for Caesar. He was charged with extortion for giving Caesar a bribe of two million sesterces. Although the case was acquitted and hushed up, the damage was done.

At this point in Sallust's life, he decided to give up (or was encouraged to give up) his Senate involvement. "Sallust became very wealthy" and was "the owner of the magnificent estate that was later the property of such notables as Nero, Vespasian, Nerva and Aurelian

Whether it was due to the extortion problems or he just considered it a good time to turn to his desire for writing is unknown. Normally, when someone has held an office and been bestowed with honors, "it will be expedient for him to signify his retreat gracefully -- no rancor, but motives above reproach"

His ambition had come to an end, and he could now follow his other interest of writing.

Yet when Sallust gave up his career to write history, he went on the defensive for doing so. While others retired to hunt or for agriculture, these activities could not fill his whole attention. "It was for slaves to devote themselves utterly to such things," he said.

(Earl 23). Even a historiography could not take up an entire gentleman's time. "It was not fit for a public man completely to withdraw from public life to devote himself to the writing of history at an age when office was still attainable" (Early 23).

Sallust thus equated writing his histories as a form of public service. He believed that his history-writing, which would soothe his bruised ambitions and win him distinction and analyze the ills of the Republic, would a service to the state. In Bellum Iugurthinum he claimed that the state will gain more advantage from his otium than from the negotium of contemporary politicians

SALLUST'S HISTORICAL WORKS

Sallust wrote several historical works, but the two monographs that remain intact are the Bellum Catilinae and the Bellum Jugurthinum. There are also four speeches and two letters as well as approximately 500 parts of his Historiae that was published in five books. It is believed by historians that "Sallust's merits as an artist have obscured, or made his readers willing to forget, his faults. As a historical authority he is at best second rank…Yet Sallust's value to us is considerable, mainly because his writings contain an interpretation of Roman history during the late Republic often differing from that in our other sources and opposed to optimate tradition."

Even his speeches are valuable historically, adds Laistner,

for they are full of ethos and convey Sallust's feelings about the men whose mouth he placed them in.

His moral stance may not be of interest to someone today, but it was to St. Augustine and to the Middle Ages. Further, his two major works are still used as major resources of the times that he lived. According to Burrows "Sallust, writing in the first century B.C. during the chaotic last years of the Republic, concluded that Rome's greatest times derived from the days when 'men burned to distinguish themselves and acquire glory in the service of the state'. But in his own time, Sallust feared that the emergence of absolute rulers had put an end to genuine patriotic service by reducing all men to the rank of servants of a single powerful man"

(Washington Times).

Allen states that readers can rightly be curious about Sallust's autobiographical remarks, because they are less sensational and more striking than most of the other facts that historians can glean about him.

In. Bellum Catilinae 3.3 Sallust told that his prior occurrence with public life had not been fortunate. Similarly, in this text, he also said that once he had determined to spend the rest of his life as a private citizen, he made the goal to dedicate himself to the writing of impartial and accurate historical monographs. His apologetic contriteness is difficult to understand.

Readers could see such statements as hypocritical moralizing, adds Allen, since didn't Sallust retire in luxury on unethical gains received from being part of Caesar's in group? The readers could also think that Sallust would write biased monographs with a Caesarian, or at least with a " popular" or " democratic" slant due to his interest and background in this political arena. Allen says that both of these thoughts do have some truth about them. Yet readers should also consider such questions as, Why would anyone continue being Caesarian indefinitely after Caesar died? What did other Caesarians decide to do after his death? Why was Sallust doubly sure to state that he had retired from active participation in public life forever? That is, what were Sallust's views and status at the exact time he was involved in the composition of his two major treatises?

According to Allen, to answer these questions, Syme and Taylor looked at Sallust's life in terms of what is known of the history and politics of his period. Since Sallust was a homo novus, it comes as no surprise that, in the typical daily political life during that time, he seemed no more involved with history after he had been praetor. The praetorship was the pinnacle of the new man's ambitions, says Taylor. Caesar did not think that Sallust was important enough to be given a consulship. In fact, none of Caesar's consuls were at Sollust's level. In addition, he did not reenter politics for the Second Triumvirate, because its methods disgusted him, and he was satisfied with his wealth. As a praetorian senator, his opinions would not be important enough to be recorded in the history of the period. According to Allen, Taylor writes: "Sallust, another new man, who gave up a political career before he reached the highest office ., " and she views him as leaving behind the heat of political involvement and continuing to reflect political principles in his writings."

Allen, however, views Sallust's comments somewhat differently than Syme and Taylor, by looking at other historical events. For example, Asconius may provide a reason why Caesar did not save Sallust. Asconius mentions that Sallust and two of his colleagues held undesirable public meetings about Cicero, because he was zealously defending Milo in 52 B.C. And that it was believed that Pompeius and Sallust had returned in good terms with Milo and Cicero, while Plancus retained his feelings of enmity. Perhaps, adds Allen, the truth is that Plancus was the only one of the three that Cicero accused and convicted for his part in these riots. It may be the case that Caesar just did not have the ability to save all of his adherents from the Pompeian onslaught and he thus focused on Curio.

It may be true that Caesar relied on Sallust in the civil war, yet Sallust did not seem to have much luck until two failures. Sallust finally regained some of his personal dignity by being reestablished by a praetorship and a provincial command. When Sallust came back to Rome and was accused of extortion, Caesar encouraged the case to be dropped. For Allen, it appears, then, Sallust's possible trial and release are obviously the cause of his subsequent retirement from politics; Caesar decided to choose a better and abler man than Sallust for the position. One may consider that this retirement was voluntary, since it is difficult to imagine Caesar becoming so upset about extortion. Yet, says Allen, this may be what actually occurred. In fact, there is a Suet passage stating that Caesar deprived men of senatorial rank who had been convicted of extortion. This was why Sallust had such a negative attitude about his so-called retirement.

One of the two major books completed by Sallust during this possibly forced retirement was an account of the War with Jugurtha, or Bellum Iugurthinum. He most likely wrote about this war because of his own involvement with the conflict and the contest with the Numidian prince. However, he states that he chose this historical event "because of its perilous nature and shifting fortunes, and because it marked the beginning of successful resistance to the dominant power of the nobles." In addition to the information that he had collected while he was in Numidia, Sallust also was able to use other literary sources, such as the Publius Rutilius Rufus History (Sisenna) and the Memoirs (Sulla), he also had Punic sources translated to help him write the book.

JUGURTHA

When comparing Sallust's books to present day history standards, Jugurtha reads more as if it were a historical novel than a scholastic history. The dates skip around and sometimes they are very vague instead of specifically spell out. He even changes the order of events to make it read more like an interesting story. Thus Sallust makes the capture of Jugurtha coincide with the Roman defeat by the Cimbri at Arausio, a disaster which took place, according to Livy, a year later than Sallust stated. Ironically, Sallust's erroneous dates for the capture of Jugurtha and the close of the war have been accepted by the school textbook publishers without question. Many school books are still wrong, Further, Marius' second consulship and triumph occur in the year 104B.C. not to 105B C. As Sallust noted. In other words, if Sallust had written his books today, they may have ended up on the New York Times Fiction list rather than Non-Fiction. Yet, that is if it is compared to today's standards. If comparing Sallust's works to what had previously been done at that time and before, it is a major enhancement over the history literature works earlier completed.

Reviewers have mixed impressions about Sallust's book on the War of Jugurtha. According to Syme, "In spite of many things either inadequate or peculiar, the military operations as narrated in Bellum Jugurthinum do not appear to have been distorted by prejudice against persons or by party animus"

. What Metellus achieved in warfare is told about in full detail and positively. Marius has top billing but not magnified more than what is really the case. In addition, Sallust is not only writing this because of the war, itself, but also due to the challenge to the aristocracy.

Syme continues that Sallust's portrayal is "both schematic and defective"

. One is further impelled to scrutinize Syme's entire conception of this Numidian War. From the onset, he seems to say that it was a necessary war that the nobles first tried to evade and then mismanaged -- corrupt at home and calamitous abroad, at least until Metellus retrieved Rome's honor in the field. However, Syme says that the reader is left with certain questions: What was the degree of Rome's responsibility for Numidia and its right to intervene there when discord and conflict existed in the dynasty? Second, what about the expedience of having a war against Jugurtha? Rome had to undergo a serious emergency on the northern frontiers at a time when there were other wars going on. Who could have thought that this would have been a war that was easily fought and advantageous? Third, in imputations of bribery, which Sallust took up with relish, but was no new thing. Everyone knew that foreign princes are generous to the Roman patrons. The Jurgurthine scandal appears to have gone much further than was normal and admittedly affected the interests as well as the honor of the Roman government. Yet, to the contrary, even Sallust says the quaestio went too far.

Fourth, what about the forces that were at work to promote intervention in Numidia? Who was behind Memmius? Perhaps it was commerce and finance, because the Knights saw profits from contracts for transport and supply in war; and they may have hoped to exploit the natural resources of Numidia if when victory was declared the land was converted into a Roman province. In the end, Numidia was not annexed and not much was gained from this war. Lastly,

asks Syme, whose the credit for the victory? "Marius surpassed Metellus, creating by his generalship the conditions in which Rome diplomacy could achieve its ends through native treachery," recounts Syme based on Sallust's accounts.

Syme states that Sallust's account redresses the balance without any depreciation of Metellas. Although Metellas had won victories in the field, Jugurtha was still at large in the empty land; he had acquired an ally, and no end in sight. Marius, however, spread his operations much more widely, harrying Jugurtha and leaving him no place of refuge. Jugurtha was driven to depend on Boccus, who seeing the strength of the Roman strategy, proved accessible to intimidation. "The agent was the quaestor Sulla, to whom Jugurtha was handed over, but the credit goes to Marius." Sallust knew warfare. He also knew Numidia, because he had been left in charge of this new province by Caesar. This was a rare and wonderful thing to happen to a historian.