Classical Series.
Edited By Drs. Schmitz And Zumpt.
* * * * *
C SALLUSTII CRISPI
DE BELLO CATILINARIO et JUGURTHINO.
* * * * *
PREFACE.
The text of Sallust, notwithstanding the many and excellent editions
which have been published, has not yet acquired a form that can be
regarded as generally adopted and established; for the number of
manuscripts is great, and their differences have led critical editors to
form different opinions as to which, in each case, is the correct
reading, or at least the one most worthy of acceptation. This difference
of opinion manifested itself especially after the edition of Gottleib
Corte (Leipzig, 1724, 4to.), who in many passages abandoned the vulgate
as constituted by Gruter and Wasse, and on the authority of a few
manuscripts, altered the text of Sallust, on the mere supposition that
his style was abrupt. Corte's recension was adopted by many, and often
reprinted; while others, especially Haverkamp, in his valuable and very
complete edition (Hague, 1742, 2 vols. 4to.), returned to the vulgate.
The latest critical editors of Sallust - Gerlach (Basel, 1823, &c. 3 vols.
4to., and a revised text, Basel, 1832, 8vo.) and Kritz (Leipzig, 1828,
&c. 2 vols. 8vo.) - though declaring against the arbitrary proceedings of
Corte, yet very often differ in their texts from each other. Between
these two stands the edition of the learned critic, J. C. Orelli (Zurich,
1840), whose text forms the basis of the present edition. But besides
abandoning his artificial and antiquated orthography, and restoring that
which is adopted in most editions of Latin classics, we have felt obliged
in many instances to give up Orelli's reading, and to follow the
authority of the best manuscripts, especially the Codex Leidensis (marked
L in Haverkamp's edition). For our explanatory notes we are much indebted
to the edition of Kritz, though we have often been under the necessity of
differing from him.
C. G. Zumpt.
Berlin, _May_, 1848.
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION.
Caius Sallustius Crispus, according to the statement of the ancient
chronologer Hieronymus, was born in B. C. 86, at Amiternum, in the
country of the Sabines (to the north-east of Rome), and died four years
before the battle of Actium - that is, in B.C. 34 or 35. After having no
doubt gone through a complete course of law and the art of oratory, he
devoted himself to the service of the Roman republic at a time when Rome
was internally divided by the struggle of the opposite factions of
the _optimates_, or the aristocracy, and the _populares_, or the
democratical party. The optimates supported the power of the senate, and
of the nobility who prevailed in the senate; while the populares were
exerting themselves to bring all public questions of importance before
the popular assembly for decision, and resisted the influence of
illustrious and powerful families, whose privileges, arising from birth
and wealth, they attempted to destroy. Sallust belonged to the latter of
these parties. In B.C. 52 he was tribune of the people, and took an
active part in the disturbances which were caused at Rome in that year by
the open struggles between Annius Milo, one of the optimates, who was
canvassing for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was trying to obtain
the praetorship. Milo slew Clodius on a public road: he was accused by
the populares, and defended by the optimates; but the judges, who could
not allow such an act of open violence to escape unpunished, condemned,
and sentenced him to exile. Pompey alone, who was then consul for the
third time, was capable of restoring order and tranquillity. The position
of a tribune of the people was a difficult one for Sallust: he was to
some extent opposed to Milo, and consequently also to Cicero, who pleaded
for Milo; but there exists a statement that he gave up his opposition;
and he himself, in the introduction to his 'Catiline,' intimates that his
honest endeavours for the good of the state drew upon him only ill-will
and hatred. Two years later (B.C. 50), he was ejected from the senate by
the censor Appius Claudius, one of the most zealous among the optimates.
The other censor, L. Piso, did not protect either Sallust, or any of the
others who shared the same fate with him, against this act of partiality.
Rome was at that time governed by the most oppressive oligarchy, which
was then mainly directed against Julius Caesar, who, as a reward for
his brilliant achievements in extending the Roman dominion in Gaul,
desired to be allowed to offer himself in his absence as a candidate for
his second consulship - a desire which the people were willing to comply
with, as it was based upon a law which had been passed some years before
in favour of Caesar; but the optimates endeavoured in every way to oppose
him, and drawing Pompey over to their side, they brought about a rupture
between him and Caesar. Sallust was looked upon in the senate as a
partisan of the latter, and this was the principal reason why he was
deprived of his seat in the great council of the republic; and L. Piso,
the father-in-law of Caesar, is said not to have opposed the partiality
of his colleague in the censorship, in order to increase the number of
Caesar's partisans. When, in B. C. 49, Caesar established his right by
force of arms, Sallust went over to him, and was restored not only to his
seat in the senate, but was advanced to the praetorship in the year B. C.
47. Sallust served, both before and during his year of office, in the
capacity of a lieutenant in Caesar's armies. He also accompanied him
to Africa in the war against the Pompeian party there, and after its
successful termination, was left behind as proconsul of Numidia, which
was made a Roman province. In the discharge of his duties, he is said to
have indulged in extorting money from the new subjects of Rome. He was
accused, but acquitted. This is the historical statement of Dion Cassius;
but a hostile writer of doubtful authority mentions that, by paying
12,000 pieces of gold to Caesar (perhaps as damages for the injury done),
he purchased his acquittal.
Hereupon Sallust withdrew from public life, to devote his leisure to
literature, and the composition of works on the history of his native
country; for, as after the murder of Caesar, in B. C. 44, the republic
was again delivered over to a state of military despotism, peaceful
advice was deprived of its influence. It need hardly be mentioned that
Sallust, as he had qualified himself for the highest political career,
and the great offices of the republic, must have been possessed of an
independent property; but the statement, that he afterwards gave himself
up to a life of luxury - that he purchased a villa at Tibur, which had
formerly belonged to Caesar - and that he possessed a splendid mansion,
with a garden laid out with elegant plantations and appropriate
buildings, at Rome, near the Colline gate - is founded on the equivocal
authority of a writer of a late period, who was hostile to him. It is
indeed certain that there existed at Rome _horti Sallustiani_, in
which Augustus frequently resided, and which were afterwards in the
possession of the Roman emperors; but it is doubtful as to whether they
had been acquired and laid out by our historian, or by his nephew, a
Roman eques, and particular favourite of Augustus. The statement that
Sallust married Terentia, the divorced wife of Cicero, is still more
doubtful, and probably altogether fictitious.[1] There is, however, a
statement of a contemporary, the learned friend of Cicero, M. Varro,
which cannot be doubted - that in his earlier years Sallust, in the midst
of the party-strife at Rome, kept up an illicit intercourse with the
wife of Milo; but how much the hostility of party may have had to do with
such a report, cannot be decided. In his writings, Sallust expresses
a strong disgust of the luxurious mode of life, and the avarice and
prodigality, of his contemporaries; and there can be no doubt that these
repeated expressions of a stern morality excited both his contemporaries
and subsequent writers to hunt up and divulge any moral foibles in his
life and character, especially as in his compositions he struck into a
new path, by abandoning the ordinary style, and artificially reviving the
ancient style of composition.
[1] This strange account is found in Hieronymus's first work against
Jovinianus, towards the end; and it becomes still more strange by the
addition, that Terentia was married a third time to the orator
Messalla Corvinus (who was consul with Augustus, B. C. 91): - _Illa_
(Terentia) _interim conjunx egregia, et quae de fontibus Tullianis
hauserat sapientiam, nupsit Sallustio, inimico ejus, et tertio
Messallae Corvino: et quasi per quosdam gradus eloquentiae devoluta
est._ It almost appears as if in this tradition it had been
intended to mark three phases in the style of Roman oratory, for
Sallust was twenty years younger than Cicero, and Messalla nearly
as many years younger than Sallust.
The historical works of Sallust are, _De Bello Catilinae_, _De Bello
Jugurthino_ (or the two _Bella_, as the ancients call them), and
five books of _Historiae_ - that is, a history of the Roman republic
during the period of twelve years, from the death of Sulla in B. C. 78,
down to the appointment of Pompey to the supreme command in the war
against Mithridates in B. C. 66. This history was regarded by the
ancients as the principal work of our author; but is now lost, with the
exception of four speeches and two political letters, which some admirer
of oratory copied separately from the context of the history, and which
have thus been preserved to our times. The two _Bella_, which are
preserved entire, form the contents of the present volume.
The work _De Bella Catilinae_ formed the beginning of his historical
compositions, as is clear from the author's own introduction; but it
was not written till after the murder of Caesar in B. C. 44. In it he
describes the conspiracy of L. Sergius Catilina, a man of noble birth and
high rank, but ruined circumstances; its discovery, and the punishment
of the conspirators at Rome in B. C. 63; and its final and complete
suppression in a pitched battle at the beginning of the year B. C. 62.
The _Bellum Jugurthinum_ treats of the life of Jugurtha, who in
B. C. 118, together with his cousins, Adherbal and Hiempsal, governed
Numidia. Having crushed his two cousins by fraud and violence, Jugurtha
afterwards maintained himself in his usurped kingdom for several years
against the Roman armies and generals that were sent out against him,
until in the end, after several defeats sustained at the hands of the
Roman consuls, L. Metullus and C. Marius, his own ally, Bocchus, king of
Mauretania, delivered him up into the hands of the Roman quaestor,
L. Sulla.
In the work on the war of Catiline, Sallust reveals especially the
corruption of what was called the Roman nobility, by tracing the criminal
designs of the conspirators to their sources - avarice, and the love of
pleasure. In the history of the Jugurthine war, he particularly exposes
and condemns the system of bribery in which the leading men of that
age indulged; but on the other hand, he draws a pleasing contrast in
describing the restoration of military discipline by Metullus and Marius.
The difficult campaigns in the extensive and desert country of Numidia,
and the wonderful events of this war, also deserve the attention of the
reader; the more so, as the author has bestowed the greatest care on
giving vivid descriptions of them.
Among the writings of Sallust, which have been transmitted to us in
manuscripts, and are printed in the larger editions of his works, there
are two epistles addressed to Caesar, containing the author's opinions
and advice regarding the new constitution to be given to the republic,
after the defeat of the optimates and their faction by the dictator. They
are written in his own peculiar style: the first contains excellent ideas
and energetic exposures of the general defects and evils in the state,
as well as plans for remedying them; the second adds some proposals
regarding the courts of justice, and the composition of the senate,
the utility and practicability of which appear somewhat doubtful.
The authenticity of these epistles, therefore, is still a matter of
uncertainty. Lastly, there are two Declamations (_declamationes_), the
one purporting to be by M. Cicero against Sallust, and the other by
Sallust against Cicero; but both are evidently unworthy of the character
and style of the men whose names they bear, and are justly considered to
be the production of some wretched rhetorician of the third or fourth
century of the Christian era.[2] Such declaimers made use of all possible
reports that were current respecting the moral weaknesses of the two men,
and respecting an enmity between them, of which history knows nothing,
and which is contradicted by our author himself, by the praise he
bestows, in his 'Catilinarian War,' upon Cicero.
[2] It has indeed been said that Quinctilian, who wrote about the year 95
after Christ, cites passages from these Declamations; but critical
investigation has shown that these passages are interpolations, and
are found only in the worst manuscripts.
Sallust's character as an historian, and his grammatical style, have
been the subjects of contradictory opinions even among the ancients
themselves - both his own contemporaries, and the men of succeeding ages.
Some condemned his introductions, as having nothing to do with the
works themselves; found fault with the minute details of the speeches
introduced in the narrative; and called him a senseless imitator, in
words and expressions, of the earlier Roman historians, especially of
Cato. Others praised him for his vivid delineations of character, the
precision and vigour of his diction, and for the dignity which he had
given to his style by the use of ancient words and phrases which were no
longer employed in the ordinary language of his own day. But however
different these opinions may appear, there is truth both in the censure
and in the praise, though the praise no doubt outweighs the censure;
and the general opinion among the later Romans justly declared _primus
Romana Crispus in historia_. It is obvious that it is altogether unjust
to say that his introductions are unsuitable, and that the speeches he
introduces are inappropriate: for an author must be allowed to write a
preface to make an avowal of his own sentiments; and the speeches are
inseparably connected with the forms of public life in antiquity: they
are certainly not too long, and express most accurately, both in
sentiment and style, the characters of the great men to whom the author
assigns them. We have no hesitation in declaring that the speeches in the
Catiline and Jugurtha, as well as those extracted from the _Historiae_,
are the most precious specimens of the kind that have come down to us
from antiquity.
As regards the grammatical style and the imitation of earlier authors,
for which Sallust has been blamed by some, and praised by others, it must
be observed that he is the first among the classical authors extant in
whose works we perceive a difference between the refined language of
public life, such as we have it in Cicero and Caesar, and a new and
artificially-formed language of literature. Cicero and Caesar wrote just
as a well-educated orator of taste spoke: after the death of Caesar,
oratory began to withdraw from the active scenes of public life; and
there remained few authors who, following the practical vocation of an
orator, though at an unfavourable epoch, yet observed the principle
which is generally correct - that a man ought to write in the same manner
in which well-bred people speak. But most men of talent who devoted
themselves to written composition for the satisfaction of their own
minds, or for the instruction of their contemporaries, created for
themselves a new style, such as was naturally developed in them by
reading the earlier authors, and through their own relations to their
readers and not hearers. Livy clung to the language, style, and the
full-sounding period of the oratorical style, though even he in many
points deviated from the natural refinement of a Caesar and a Cicero;
but Sallust gave up the oratorical period, divided the long-spun,
full-sounding, and well-finished oratorical sentence into several short
sentences; and in this manner he seemed to go back to the ancients, who
had not yet invented the period: but still there was a great difference
between his style, in which the ancient simplicity was artificially
restored, and the genuine ancient sentence formed without any rhetorical
art. He wrote without periods, because he would not write otherwise, and
not because he could not; he divided the rhetorical period into separate
sentences, because it appeared to him advantageous in his animated
description of minute details; and he wrote concisely, because he did
not want the things to fill up his sentences which the orator requires
to give roundness and fulness to his periods. He states in isolated
independent sentences those ideas and thoughts which the orator
distributes among leading and subordinate sentences; but he did all this
consciously, as an artist, and with the conviction that it was conducive
to historical animation. Tacitus was his imitator in this artificial
historical style; and notwithstanding all his well-deserved praise, it
must he admitted that the blame cast upon Sallust attaches in a still
higher degree to Tacitus. It is a fact beyond all doubt, that Sallust
introduced into the language of literature antiquated forms, words, and
expressions; and this arose from a desire to recall with the ancient
language also the ancient vigour and simplicity. But even this revival of
what was ancient is visible only here and there, and all such words and
phrases might be exchanged for others and more customary ones, without
depriving Sallust of his essential characteristics; for these consist in
a vivid perception of the important moments of an action, in placing them
in strong contrasts, to excite his readers, and in the effect produced by
isolated sentences simply put in juxtaposition without the artifice of a
polished and intricate period.
To give our young readers some preparatory information about certain
frequently-recurring peculiarities of Sallust's style, we may remark that
the omission of the personal pronoun in the construction of the
accusative with the infinitive, as well as the omission of the auxiliary
verb _est_, and the frequent use of the infinitive instead of a
dependent clause - for example, _hortatur dicere, res postulat exponere,
conjuravere patriam incendere_, and many similar expressions - arise
from his desire to be brief and concise. Among his antiquated forms of
words, we may mention _die_ for _diei_, the singular _plerusque_, _quis_
for _quibus_, _senati_ for _senatus_; _dicundi, legundi_, &c. for
_dicendi, legendi_; _intellego_ for _intelligo_, _forem_ for _essem_,
_fuere_ for _fuerunt_; the use of the past participles of deponent verbs
in a passive sense - as _adeptus, interpretatus_. Antiquated words, or
words used in an antiquated sense, are - _supplicium_ for _preces_,
_scilicet_ for _scire licet_; antiquated expressions are - _fugam facere_
for _fugere_, _habere vitam_ for _agere vitam_, and other phrases with
_habere_. The frequent use of _mortales_ for _homines_, _aevum_ for
_aetas_, and _subigere_ for _cogere_, gives to his style somewhat of a
poetical colouring. As far as grammatical construction is concerned,
there is a tendency to archaisms in the use of _quippe qui_ with the
indicative; in the frequent application of the indicative in subordinate
sentences in the oratio obliqua; and in some other points which we shall
explain in short notes to the passages where they occur. An intentional
disturbance of rhetorical symmetry is perceptible in the change of
corresponding particles; - for example, instead of _alii_ in the
expression _alii-alii_, we find _pars_ or _partim_; instead of _modo_ in
the expression _modo-modo_, we find _interdum_, and similar variations.
But all these differences from the ordinary language contain in
themselves sufficient grounds of explanation and excuse, and are by no
means so frequent as to render the language of Sallust unworthy of the
merited reputation of being classical.
* * * * *
C. SALLUSTII CRISPI
BELLUM CATILINARIUM.
* * * * *
1. Omnes[1] homines, qui sese student[2] praestare ceteris animalibus,
summa ope[3] niti decet, ne vitam silentio transeant veluti pecora, quae
natura prona[4] atque ventri obedientia finxit. Sed nostra omnis vis in
animo et corpore sita est; animi imperio, corporis servitio magis utimur;
alterum nobis cum dis,[5] alterum cum beluis[6] commune est. Quo mihi
rectius videtur ingenii quam virium opibus gloriam quaerere et, quoniam
vita ipsa qua fruimur brevis est, memoriam nostri[7] quam maxime
longam[8] efficere. Nam divitiarum et formae gloria fluxa atque fragilis
est, virtus clara aeternaque habetur. Sed diu magnum inter mortales
certamen fuit,[9] vine corporis an virtute animi res militaris magis
procederet. Nam et prius quam incipias consulto, et ubi consulueris
mature facto opus est.[10] Ita utrumque per se indigens, alterum alterius
auxilio eget.
[1] _Omnes_. Other editions have _omnis_ or _omneis_. The accusative
plural of words of the third declension making their genitive plural
in _ium_, varied in early Latin, sometimes ending in _is_, and
sometimes in _eis_ or _es_. This fluctuation, however, afterwards
ceased; and even in the best age of the Latin language it became
generally customary to make the accusative plural like the nominative
in _es_. The same was the case with some other obsolete forms, as
_volt_ for _vult_, _divorsus_ for _diversus_, _quoique_ for _cuique_,
_maxumus_ for _maximus_, _quom_ for _quum_, or _cum_, which are
retained in many editions, but have been avoided in the present, in
accordance with the orthography generally adopted during the best
period of the Latin language.
[2] _Studeo_, when the verb following has the same subject, may be
construed in three ways - with the infinitive alone, as _studeo
praestare_; with the accusative and infinitive, _studeo me
praestare_, as in the present case; or with _ut_, as _studeo ut
praestem_.
[3] _Summa ope_, 'with the greatest exertion,' equivalent to _summa
opere, summopere_; as _magno opere_, or _magnopere_, signifies 'with
great exertion,' or 'greatly.' The nominative _ops_ is not in use,
and the plural _opes_ generally signifies 'the means' or 'power of
doing something.'
[4] _Prona_, 'bent forward,' 'bent down to the ground,' in opposition to
the erect gait of man.
[5] _Dis_ for _diis_. See Zumpt, S 51, n. 5.
[6] _Beluis_; another, but less correct mode of spelling, is _bellua,
belluis_.
[7] Instead of _memoriam nostri_, Sallust might have said _memoriam
nostram_; but the genitive _nostri_ sets forth the object of
remembrance with greater force. See Zumpt, S 423.
[8] _Quam maxime longam_; that is, _quam longissimam_, 'lasting as long
as possible.' Zumpt, S 108.
[9] The author here makes a digression, to remove the objection that in
war bodily strength is of greater importance than mental superiority.
He admits that in the earlier times it may have been so, but
maintains that in more recent times, when the art of war had become
rather complicate, the superiority of mind has become manifest. _Vine
corporis an_; that is, _utrum vi corporis an_. See Zumpt, S 554.
[10] That is, 'before undertaking anything, reflect well; but when
you have reflected, then carry your design into execution without
delay.' The past participles _consulta_ and _facto_ here supply the
place of verbal substantives.
2. Igitur[11] initio reges (nam in terris nomen imperii id primum fuit),
diversi pars[12] ingenium, alii corpus exercebant; etiamtum vita hominum
sine cupiditate agitabatur, sua cuique satis placebant. Postea vero
quam[13] in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia Lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere
urbes atque nationes subigere; libidinem dominandi causam belli habere,
maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare, tum demum periculo atque
negotiis compertum est in bello plurimum ingenium posse. Quodsi[14] regum
atque imperatorum animi virtus[15] in pace ita ut in bello valeret,
aequabilius atque constantius sese res humanae haberent, neque aliud
alio[16] ferri, neque mutari ac misceri omnia cerneres. Nam imperium
facile his artibus retinetur, quibus initio partum est. Verum ubi pro
labore desidia, pro continentia et aequitate libido atque superbia
invasere, fortuna simul cum moribus immutatur. Ita imperium semper ad
optimum quemque[17] a minus bono transfertur. Quae homines arant,
navigant, aedificant, virtuti omnia parent. Sed multi mortales dediti
ventri atque somno, indocti incultique vitam sicuti peregrinantes
transiere;[18] quibus profecto contra naturam corpus voluptati, anima
oneri fuit. Eorum ego vitam mortemque juxta aestimo,[19] quoniam de
utraque siletur. Verum enimvero[20] is demum mihi vivere atque frui anima
videtur, qui aliquo negotio intentus[21] praeclari facinoris aut artis
bonae famam quaerit. Sed in magna copia rerum aliud alii natura iter
ostendit.
[11] Respecting the frequent position of _igitur_ at the beginning of a
sentence in Sallust, see Zumpt, S 357.
[12] _Pars_, instead of _alii_, probably to avoid the repetition of
_alii_, and to produce variety.
[13] _Postea vero quam_, for _postquam vero_. The author means to say,
that after the formation of great empires by extensive conquests, the
truth became manifest that even in war mind was superior to mere
bodily strength. He mentions Cyrus, king of Persia, the
Lacedaemonians and Athenians, because the earlier empires of the
Egyptians and Assyrians did not yet belong to accredited history.
[14] Sallust here introduces, by _quodsi_ (and if, or yes, if), an
illustration connected with the preceding remarks. Respecting this
connecting power of _quodsi_, as distinguished from the simple _si_,
see Zumpt, S 807. This illustration, which ends with the word
_transfertur_, was suggested to Sallust especially by the
consideration of the recent disturbances in the Roman republic under
Pompey, Caesar, and Mark Antony, three men who, in times of peace,
saw their glory, previously acquired in war, fade away.
[15] _Animi virtus_; these two words are here united to express a single
idea, 'mental greatness.'
[16] _Aliud alio ferri_, 'that one thing is drawn in one direction, and
the other in another.' For _aliud alio_, see Zumpt, S 714; and for
_cerneres_, in which the second person singular of the subjunctive
answers to the English 'you' when not referring to any definite
person, S 381.
[17] _Optimum quemque_, 'to every one in proportion as he is better than
others.' Respecting this relative meaning of _quisque_, see Zumpt,
S 710. 'Every one,' absolutely, is _unusqisque_, and adjectively
_omnis_.
[18] 'They have passed through life like strangers or travellers;' that
is, as if they had no concern with their own life, although it is
clear that human life is of value only when men are conscious of
themselves, and exert themselves to cultivate their mental powers,
and apply them to practical purposes.
[19] 'I set an equal value upon their life and their death;' that is,
an equally low value, _juxta_ being equivalent to _aeque_ or
_pariter_.
[20] _Verum enimvero;_ these conjunctions are intended strongly to draw
the attention of the reader to the conclusion from a preceding
argument.
[21] 'Intent upon some occupation.' _Intentus_ is commonly construed
with the dative, or the preposition _in_ or _ad_ with the accusative;
but as a person may be intent _upon_ something, so he also may be
intent _by_, or _in consequence of_, something, so that the ablative
is perfectly consistent.
3. Pulcrum est bene facere rei publicae; etiam bene dicere haud absurdum
est;[22] vel pace vel bello clarum fieri licet; et qui fecere et qui
facta aliorum scripsere, multi laudantur. Ac mihi quidem,[23] tametsi
haudquaquam par gloria sequitur scriptorem et actorem rerum, tamen in
primis arduum videtur res gestas scribere; primum quod facta dictis
exaequanda sunt, dehinc quia plerique, quae delicta reprehenderis,
malivolentia et invidia dicta putant;[24] ubi de magna virtute atque
gloria bonorum memores, quae sibi quisque facilia factu putat, aequo
animo accipit, supra ea[25] veluti ficta pro falsis ducit.
Sed ego[26] adolescentulus initio sicuti plerique studio ad rem publicam
latus sum, ibique mihi multa adversa fuere. Nam pro pudore, pro
abstinentia, pro virtute, audacia, largitio, avaritia vigebant. Quae
tametsi animus aspernabatur, insolens malarum artium,[27] tamen inter
tanta vitia imbecilla aetas ambitione corrupta tenebatur[28]: ac me, quum
ab reliquorum malis moribus dissentirem, nihilo minus honoris cupido
eadem qua ceteros fama atque invidia vexabat.[29]
[22] _Haud absurdum est_, 'is not unbecoming;' that is, 'is worthy
of man.'
[23] _Quidem_ here, like the Greek [Greek: men] in [Greek: emoi men],
without a [Greek: de] following, introduces one opinion in
contradistinction from others, though the latter are not mentioned,
but merely suggested by _quidem_. 'I for my part think so, but what
others think I do not know, or care.'
[24] 'If you censure any things as faults or delinquencies, your censure
is considered to have arisen from malevolence or ill-will.'
[25] _Supra ea_, 'whatever is beyond: that;' that is, whatever is beyond
the capacity of the reader.
[26] The author now passes over to his own experience, telling us that
after having devoted himself at first to the career of a public man,
and finding that he was not understood, and ill-used by his
opponents, he formed the determination to give himself up to a
literary life.
[27] _Insolens malarum artium_, 'unacquainted with base artifices or
intrigues;' for _artes_ may be _malae_ as well as _bonae_,
according as they consist in the skill of doing bad or good things.
[28] _Imbecilla aetas_, 'my weak age;' that is, my mind, which had
not yet arrived at mature independence,'was corrupted by ambition,
and was kept under the influence of such bad circumstances.' Sallust
means to say that if his mind had arrived at manly independence, he
would have immediately withdrawn from the vicious atmosphere of
public life.
[29] My ambition caused me to be equally ill spoken of and envied, and
thus to be dragged down to a level with the rest, and to be equally
harassed and persecuted as they were.
4. Igitur ubi animus ex multis miseriis atque periculis requievit et mihi
reliquam aetatem a re publica procul habendam decrevi, non fuit consilium
socordia atque desidia bonum otium conterere;[30] neque vero agrum
colendo aut venando, servilibus officiis,[31] intentum aetatem agere; sed
a quo incepto studioque me ambitio mala detinuerat, eodem regressus
statui res gestas populi Romani carptim,[32] ut quaeque memoria digna
videbantur, perscribere; eo magis, quod mihi a spe, metu, partibus rei
publicae animus liber erat. Igitur de Catilinae conjuratione quam
verissime potero paucis absolvam:[33] nam id facinus in primis ego
memorabile existimo sceleris atque periculi novitate. De cujus hominis
moribus pauca prius explananda sunt, quam initium narrandi faciam.
[30] _Conterere_ - that is, _consumere_, 'to waste my fair leisure.'
[31] Sallust here calls agriculture and the chase occupations of men in a
servile condition, although the majority of the ancients considered
the former especially as the most honourable occupation of free
citizens. But he seems to think that in comparison with the important
business of writing the history of his country, agriculture and the
chase are not suitable occupations for a man who has at one time
taken an active part in political affairs.
[32] _Carptim_, 'in detached parts.'
[33] _Paucis absolvam_, 'I shall treat briefly,' or _paucis pertractabo
conjurationem Catilinae_.
5. Lucius Catilina,[34] nobili genere natus, fuit magna vi et animi et
corporis, sed ingenio malo pravoque. Huic abadolescentia bella
intestina, caedes, rapinae, discordia civilis grata fuere, ibique
juventutem suam exercuit. Corpus patiens[35] inediae, algoris, vigiliae,
supra quam cuiquam credibile est. Animus audax, subdolus, varius, cujus
rei libet[36] simulator ac dissimulator, alieni appetens, sui profusus,
ardens in cupiditatibus; satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum. Vastus
animus immoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat. Hunc post
dominationem Lucii Sullae libido maxima invaserat rei publicae
capiundae,[37] neque id quibus modis assequeretur, dum sibi regnum
pararet, quidquam pensi habebat. Agitabatur magis magisque in dies animus
ferox inopia rei familiaris et conscientia scelerum, quae utraque his
artibus auxerat,[38] quas supra memoravi. Incitabant praeterea corrupti
civitatis mores, quos pessima ac diversa inter se mala, luxuria atque
avaritia, vexabant. Res ipsa hortari videtur, quoniam de moribus
civitatis tempus admonuit, supra repetere[39] ac paucis instituta majorum
domi militiaeque,[40] quomodo rem publicam habuerint quantamque
reliquerint, ut paulatim immutata ex pulcherrima pessima ac
flagitiosissima facta sit, disserere.
[34] Sallust begins with a general description of the character of
Catiline. This talented person, though of a most wicked disposition,
belonged to the patrician _gens Sergia_, which traced its descent to
one of the companions of Aeneas. This is no doubt fabulous, but at
any rate proves the high antiquity of the gens. The most renowned
among the ancestors of Catiline was M. Sergius, a real model of
bravery, who distinguished himself in the Gallic and second Punic
wars, and after having lost his right hand in battle, wielded the
sword with the left. As Catiline offered himself as a candidate for
the consulship in B.C. 66, which no Roman was allowed to do by law
before having attained the age of forty-three, we may fairly presume
that he was born about B.C. 109, in the time of the Jugurthine war.
Cicero was born in B.C. 106, and was consequently a few years younger
than Catiline.
[35] _Patiens inediae_. Respecting the genitive governed by this and
similar participles - as soon after _alieni appetens_ - see Zumpt,
S 438.
[36] _Cujus rei libet;_ it is more common to say _cujuslibet rei_.
Sometimes the relative pronouns compounded with _cunque_ and _libet_
are separated by the insertion of some other word or words between
them, which in grammatical language is called a tmesis - as _quod enim
cunque judicium subierat, absolvebatur; quem sors dierum cunque tibi
dederit, lucre appone,_ 'whatever day chance may give thee, consider
it as a gain.'
[37] _Capiundae_. Respecting the _e_ or _u_ in such gerunds and
gerandives, see Zumpt, S 167.
[38] _Auxerat_. He had increased both by the above-mentioned
qualities - namely, his poverty by extravagance, and the consciousness
of guilt by the crimes he committed. The neuter plural _quae_,
referring to two feminine substantives denoting abstract ideas, is
not very common, though quite justifiable. Zumpt, S 377.
[39] Respecting the infinitive after _hortari_, instead of the more
common use of the conjunction _ut_, see Zumpt, S 615.
[40] _Domi militiaeque_, 'in times of peace and in war.'
6. Urbem Romam,[41] sicuti ego accepi, condidere atque habuere initio
Trojani, qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis vagabantur, cumque his
Aborigines,[42] genus hominum agreste, sine legibus, sine imperio,
liberum atque solutum. Hi postquam in una[43] moenia convenere, dispari
genere, dissimili lingua, alius alio more viventes, incredibile memoratu
est quam facile coaluerint.[44] Sed postquam res eorum civibus, moribus,
agris aucta, satia prospera satisque pollens videbatur, sicuti pleraque
mortalium habentur, invidia ex opulentia orta est. Igitur reges populique
finitimi bello temptare,[45] pauci ex amicis auxilio esse; nam ceteri
metu perculsi a periculis aberant. At Romani domi militiaeque intenti
festinare, parare, alius alium hortari, hostibus obviam ire, libertatem,
patriam parentesque armis tegere. Post, ubi pericula virtute propulerant,
sociis atque amicis auxilia portabant,[46] magisque dandis quam
accipiundis beneficiis amicitias parabant. Imperium legitimum, nomen
imperii regium habebant;[47] delecti, quibus corpus annis infirmum,
ingenium sapientia validum erat, rei publicae consultabant;[48] hi vel
aetate vel curae similitudine patres appellabantur. Post, ubi regium
imperium, quod initio conservandae libertatis atque augendae rei
publicae[49] fuerat, in superbiam dominationemque convertit[50] immutato
more annua imperia binosque imperatores[51] sibi fecere; eo modo minime
posse putabant per licentiam insolescere animum humanum.
[41] In the following eight chapters (6-13) Sallust describes the
transition from the stern manners, the warlike energy, and domestic
peace of the ancient Romans, to the corruption prevalent in the time
of Catiline, and which consisted chiefly in extravagance, avarice,
oppression, and the love of dominion. His description is a striking
picture of the early virtuous character of the Romans, and their
subsequent indulgence in vice. He traces all the corruption of his
time to the immense wealth accumulated at Rome, after she had
acquired the dominion over the world - that is, after the destruction
of Carthage and Corinth; and he marks out in particular Sulla as
the man who had fostered the very worst qualities in order to obtain
supreme power for himself.
[42] According to the current tradition, the people of the Latins had
been formed by a union of the Trojan emigrants with the native
Aborigines. Their capital was Alba Longa, and they lived about
Alba, on and near the Alban Mount, in a great number of confederate
townships. Four centuries after the arrival of Aeneas, the city
of Rome was founded by Albans on the extreme frontier of the Latin
territory, and near the hostile tribes by which it was surrounded.
Sallust passes over the intermediate stages, either because he, like
others, thought Rome much more ancient, or because, having to do
only with the description of manners, he was unconcerned about
historical developments.
[43] _Una_ is the plural. See Zumpt, S 115, note.
[44] It is indeed wonderful how quickly the Roman people, although
consisting of a mixture of different tribes - whether, as Sallust
briefly intimates, they were Trojans and Aborigines, or, as the more