Sallust's historical writings and the Roman Republic

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.

SALLUST'S IMPORTANCE

How important is Sallust's works today? Sallust is convinced that a memorial of past achievements is valuable as a model for future generations, as he states in Jugurtha (4.5-6). He also complains that his nation has lacked the men of genius, such as Athens had produced in the field of history, to lend glory to the noteworthy accomplishments of the Roman people (Cat. 8). Cicero says the same: Sallust's Roman predecessors in the area of history lacked considerably. They were only narrators and sadly lacked the prose style. Brevity and truthfulness were their only virtues. Instead of writing histories, the eloquence of Rome was in the area of public speaking. Those who did write history, only recorded events year after year without any analysis

Sallust has made a major impact down through the ages. The Renaissance, for example, praised him for his writings on the political times in Rome. The writers who have since copied, and borrowed Sallust's ideas were not looking to actually comprehend his point-of-view and to understand his thoughts and writings in their contemporary Roman context. Instead, they wanted to make his writings relevant to their own experience and, in the process, take his thoughts and themes, character studies and philosophical explanations that best suited their own interests and end goals.

Sallust's own life and political times took place within one of the most critical and important periods in the history of the early world, a time that saw firsthand the early stages in the transformation of a city-state government and the evolution from a republican and collectivist philosophy to apologetic thoughts for monarchy. As the defender of liberty, naysayer of Rome's corruption, or strong supporter of established order, the historian Sallust has been able to speak to people of many different centuries.

CONCLUSION

Presently, there is a trend across universities and colleges across the United States to cut parts of the humanities programs, especially writings and history about the early years in Greece and Rome and the classics. It is believed that this will be a good way to reduce costs in a very lean academic time. However, the humanities can easily be described as the manner in which society asks questions of itself and its growth over its history. The work in humanities is not to find technical solutions, but human and real solutions to individual needs and problems. The end goal is to produce ethical and inner-looking citizens who are able to adapt to change and lead in innovation due to their creativity and far-sighted thinking. The 21st century is a time where the product is knowledge, or, in other words, great amounts of information must move quickly around the globe and motivate people to try new methods, inventions, business plans and development initiatives.

Given the corruption, greed and selfishness the United States has seen over the past several years, and becoming even worse just this year, is it not important to look back at other times in history through humanities courses and try as hard as possible to learn from the past and not let what comes around go around and around again and again. It is time to learn through history from people such as Sallust.