Catiline's War, The Jurgurthine War, Histories

by Sallust, A.J. Woodman (Translator)

Sallust (86–c. 35 bc) is the earliest Roman historian of whom complete works survive, a senator of the Roman Republic and younger contemporary of Cicero, Pompey and Julius Caesar. His Catiline’s War tells of the conspiracy in 63 bc led by L. Sergius Catilina, who plotted to assassinate numerous senators and take control of the government, but was thwarted by Cicero. Sallust’s vivid account of Roman public life shows a Republic in decline, prey to moral corruption and internal strife. In The Jugurthine War he describes Rome’s fight in Africa against the king of the Numidians from 111 to 105 bc, and provides a damning picture of the Roman aristocracy. Also included in this volume are the major surviving extracts from Sallust’s now fragmentary Histories, depicting Rome after the death of the dictator Sulla.

Genres: History, Classics, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Roman, Ancient, School

204 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 41

About the author

Gaius Sallustius Crispus (86 BC-34 BC), better known as 'Sallust' was a Roman politician and historian who supported Populares party of Julius Caesar.

His historical works included romanticized views of events, which served as polemics against his moral opponents, including Cicero. It was a style which set him apart from the dry historians who proceeded him.

Sallust joined Caesar in the African wars, and after their victory, was placed as governor of Roman Africa. He eventually retired to private life, when he composed his histories and funded an extensive personal garden.

Reviews

[Justin Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sallust is surely one of the most fascinating fellows of the ancient world. Here's a taste of his biography: he attacked Cicero in 52 (failed), was kicked out of the senate in 50. He backed Caesar (smart), but when Caesar sent him to help Antonius, he, well, failed. Two years later he was sent to deal with a mutiny and, as you can probably guess, failed. His punishment for repeated failure was being made a governor in 46. One year later, enormously rich, he quit. In 44 he was tried for extortion (acquitted). Having failed so egregiously at literally everything (but consistently failing up) he thought he'd take up history writing, and became one of the most influential historians and stylists of the ancient world. We all know someone like Sallust, the type of person who could beat their bosses with a lead pipe and be given a promotion the next day.

Luckily, Sallust really was a pretty good writer. Batstone's translation smooths off the extreme difficulty of Sallust's style, but keeps the pithiness (compare: every other historian before Sallust, all of whom wrote eighteen thousand volume monsters; Tacitus apparently learned from Sallust). The two major histories (I exclude The Histories, since they're in here for completeness and scholarly respectability; I can't imagine too many people reading those fragments with pleasure) each include fascinating philosophical prologues and a wonderful old-man odor of crankiness. The people are always far more interesting in Sallust's depiction than they are in, e.g., Cicero; Catiline seems like a pretty reasonable guy gone wrong, as does Jugurtha. And in general it's nice to read a Roman who doesn't have time for the pretensions of the aristocrats of the senate. The comparison with today casts an interesting light on all the neoclassical buildings that dot America's administrative districts.

Also, this is a very good edition if, like me, you don't know that much about the events Sallust is writing about. Batstone has encouraged me to read more about the late Republic, which is the best thing one can say about an editor/translator.

[Smiley · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think I didn't enjoy reading Sallust's 'Catiline's War' and 'The Jugurthine War' as much as I did from reading Arrian's 'The Campaigns of Alexander', Polybius' 'The Rise of the Roman Empire' and Livy's 'The War with Hannibal'. I was sorry for my two-star verdict for these reasons:

1) Whenever I found 'the senate' (at Rome), I thought it should be 'the Senate' which linguistically signified her supremacy like the way it's systematically used in Livy's book mentioned above. It's my understanding that the other cities in Italy, they had their own 'senates', but there was only one 'Senate' at Rome. In essence, 'the senate' was for minor cities, I preferred 'the Senate' to 'the senate' as used differently in Livy's.

2) From this index (p. 199):
Cornelius Scipio Africanus, Publius (cons. I 205) 53 (?), 54, 174, 175

From any information related to Scipio who conquered Hannibal, as I read I wonder why he wrote with few details. Is it his style or what?

3) I don't include 'Histories' in my first line since its 4-book texts're so fragmentary that it's tough to make sense/follow any related event or notable consul. Then, I don't agree with the Penguin's synopsis (back page, to verify) that praised him as one of the great three Roman historians including Livy and Tacitus [whose 'The Histories' (Penguin, 2009) I'm going to read next].

In brief, this book should be read with more in-depth understanding by those experienced, Latin-literate readers of Roman history. As for some few newcomers, you need patience.

[AB · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think that before I start talking about Sallust, I have to get my need to compare him with Tacitus out of the way. It's obvious that the former has influenced the latter, but they are both sufficiently different that they both have their own unique rewards. While reading Catiline's Conspiracy, I struggled with separating the two at first. Sallust is far more subtle and elusive than Tacitus is. Once I was able to separate the two and enjoy Sallust in his own right, I greatly enjoyed what I read.

Sallust has a biting style. He is very clear on what he believes was wrong with the Republic.
What Sallust says is not unique. People who have read Roman historians are familiar with the common themes that pop up when discussing the Republic. That being said, I enjoyed his take. It's not written in a dry style of writing. Sallust is very colorful with his terms and language. He also liberally uses a vague sense of meaning. Many events and incidents are left open ended with several possible reasons as to why something happened. Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey are all shadows on the periphery of the Catline Conspiracy. Even Cicero's actions are doubted.

What I think I found the most enjoyable in Sallust's writing is the complete lack of pure, upright moral characters. Every character has faults and is both praised and condemned by Sallust. Jugurthas characteristics and actions are noticeably similar to Marius and Sulla. Marius and Metellus are both praised and questioned. And even Sulla, who although long dead haunts the events of the Catiline Conspiracy and whose later dictatorship Sallust refuses to discuss, is given positive descriptions.

Overall a great read.

[Adam McPhee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Catiline's Conspiracy was okay but it was The Jugurthine War that was most interesting, it's a classical war campaign narrative. There's war elephants and night battles and treks through the desert to remote towns. Interesting to read about ancient North Africa too, which you never hear about, aside from Carthage. That said, the book was a bit of a slog at times. Those sentences go on forever with clause after clause inserted.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Histories amid moral decline. People pursue their selfish interests while pretending to care for the common good.

[Felix · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sallust was a frightful moraliser. These accounts are as much about the path to good character as they are about actual history. The account of the Jurguthine War was the most interesting part in my eyes. There, Sallust lets some moral grey areas creep in. And his descriptions of much of the action can be surprisingly evocative. I particularly enjoyed the descriptions of the soldier who goes off looking for snails, and everything that occurs as a result of that. Of course, it's hard to tell how much of this is a result of the translation (I read Rolfe's), but enjoyable nevertheless.

The account of Catiline's War was less interesting to me. Although doubtless a very important part of Rome's history, Sallust's account is so steeped in moral judgement that I got very little insight into the major players. In his account of the Jurgurthine War, I got a fairly strong image of the strengths and weaknesses of Marius and Metellus, and even Sulla. Sallust's account of Catiline's War is much more black and white, and Catiline himself sometimes comes across as almost comedically evil.

[Varad · Rating 4 out of 5]

That Sallust's writings are the oldest surviving complete works of history in Latin is one of those quirks that are a daily fact of life in the world of classical scholarship. Some texts survive intact, others only as fragments, sometimes in the form of quotations in other texts. That is the fate of Sallust's Histories, which exists only in bits and pieces. The largest, which are reproduced here, are in that form characteristic of ancient historiography, the invented speech (or letter) in which the author puts into the speaker's mouth words that the author believes captures the spirit of what the speaker did say (and should have said) on the occasion. The Histories covered the period in the 70s-60s BC where the strife between the pro- and anti-Sullan factions finally managed to tear Rome completely apart, paving the way for first Pompey and then Caesar to take personal control over Rome, leading eventually to the collapse of the Republic and the foundation of the Empire.

Sallust died in 35 BC and so did not see Augustus' eventual triumph. For him that was the future. But the past showed the way, and so Sallust's main theme in his two surviving works, Catiline's War and The Jugurthine War is the decline and corruption of Rome. Sallust does not shortchange either of his subjects, but he always has his eye on his broader theme and uses the two episodes as manifestations of deeper forces in Roman history: the corruption of Roman politics, class strife between the plebs and nobility, and the decay of traditional Roman morality.

Sallust therefore identifies as one of his chief reasons for writing about the war with Jugurtha and the kingdom of Numidia, which lasted from 111-106 BC, its being "the first time that the haughtiness of the nobility was confronted" (53). Jugurtha's usurpation of the throne is validated only because of his extensive (and quite lucrative) bribery of the Senate. This leads Jugurtha to say, on his way out of Rome after a temporary setback there, that "it was a city for sale and soon to be doomed - if only it found a buyer" (80). Sallust repeats this formula that the city was for sale several times, and clearly his conviction is that Rome by this point had become available to whoever put in the highest bid.

Besides diagnosing the illness, Sallust tries to offer an etiology of it, and he traces its origins to the end of the Third Punic War (146 BC). The life-or-death struggle with Carthage having ended in a decisive victory for Rome, the Roman people, previously united by the mortal threat from Africa, found itself free from the sense of dread that kept it on the straight and narrow. Now "recklessness and haughtiness" came along and flourished now that the Romans had time for such things. The Romans, far from enjoying their inactivity and release, curdled in it. "[T]he nobility began to turn their rank, and the people their freedom, into matters of whim: every man for himself appropriated, looted and seized. So the whole was split into two parties, and the commonwealth, which had been neutral, was rent apart" (83). Able to concentrate its wealth and power in fewer hands, the nobility gained the edge over the populace and became overweening and imperious. After staving off the threat from the Gracchi, they consolidated their power but only in a way that made their position precarious instead of secure. "Therefore the nobility, capitalizing on their conquest according to their whim, annihilated many mortal beings by the sword or by exile and mae themselves more fearful than powerful for the future - a circumstance which has often been the downfall of great communities, in that one side wants to conquer the other by whatever means and to exact from the conquered too bitter a vengeance" (84).

Rome, therefore, was fighting against itself as much as against Numidia. For Sallust this is much the most important aspect of his story, and so he devotes considerable attention to the infighting between the various Roman commanders and their respective factions. In this sense, the history of the war with Jugurtha is really the history of the emergence of Marius and Sulla, the two figures who would nearly destroy Rome in the 80s. Marius, the "new man" (meaning he had no ancestors who had served in the Senate) appeals to the plebs to get himself placed in the consulship against the dictates of the nobility. This done, he then uses the plebs' anger, frustration, and resentment to have himself put in charge of the Numidian campaign, replacing the Senate's man, Q. Metellus, a name of such distinction that a Q. Metellus pops up as consul every thirty years or so. One of Marius' lieutenants? Sulla, who at this point is a capable organizer and commander, despite his proclivity for the luxurious indolence of the nobility. There is much to admire in both men, but given the proleptic character of his narrative (his readers would already know where this story ended), Sallust can never give more than partial approbation to their conduct. Especially is this so for Sulla, whose later behavior leaves Sallust "uncertain whether there is more shame or distaste in discussing it" (125).

What Sulla did was give sanction to seizing and looting by seizing and looting Rome. Once he did that, "everyone started to seize and loot" (9). Riches became the source of honor and distinction and power. Consequently, "prowess began to dull, poverty to be considered a disgrace and blamelessness to be regarded as malice" (10).

The Rome of Catiline's conspiracy has lived through everything wrought by the Jugurthine war and Sulla's ascendance. What was in its future is now its past. For Sallust, that history is one of how the commonwealth "changed gradually from the finest and best and became the worst and most outrageous" (6). For all his denunciations of Catiline's depravity and wretchedness, Sallust makes clear it could only have found an outlet in an equally depraved and wretched Rome. Catiline could attract the desperate, the vile, the wretched, and the hopeless because there were so many of them in Rome. Hence he has Catiline more than once express frustration with the power structures of Rome, in which (other) undeserving men get all the spoils while those like him have no chance to get them: "[A]ll favour, power, honour and riches rest with them or are where they want them; to us they have left the dangers, rejections, lawsuits and destitution" (15).

Not even Cicero, the traditional hero of the conspiracy (in no small measure because his own rhetorical brilliance made him such), comes off entirely pristine. He's just another compromised figure trying to make the best of a bad situation. Much of the back-and-forth and day-to-day narrative of the conspiracy is not easy to follow and requires supplementing by Cicero's speeches (only the first of which Sallust mentions).

Instead, the true value of Catiline's War lies in its broader message and in its concise statement of Sallust's perspective on the state of Rome. "It was at that period that the empire of the Roman people seemed to me easily at its most pitiful." Something had to be profoundly wrong for Rome to become prey to "the violence and the kind of rottenness which had attacked many of the citizens' spirits" (24). For one thing, though it had conquered from east to west, it could be frightened out of its wits because so much rabble had flowed into Rome lately "as if into a bilge" (25). Many of these had been displaced by Sulla, who had expropriated their land to redistribute to his own soldiers. For Sallust a chief problem is that the factional strife and endless retributions of the last few decades had caused such bitterness and vehement desire for vengeance that people wanted their enemies smited as much as they wanted victory for themselves. "[W]hoever belonged to a different party from the senate's preferred the commonwealth be disabled rather than that they themselves should thrive less well. That, indeed, was the malady which after many years had returned to the community" (25).

The consequence of it all was that by this time it was impossible for anyone to speak of the common good or the commonwealth. No one could act impartially, for no one would believe it. "For after those times . . . no matter who stirred up the commonwealth on honorable pretexts . . . each of them, despite his pretence of the common good, was competing for his own powerfulness" (26). Only in a Rome such a this could a conspirator like Catiline arise. That is the true moral of Sallust's story. Really, that is his story.

With his moralizing tendencies and lapidary, aphoristic style, Sallust presages the development of Roman historiography in his successors such as Livy and Tacitus, who would write narratives that would survive. Indeed, when he declares that he shall write "free from hope, dread, and political partisanship" (5), one can't help hearing an echo of Tacitus' legendary avowal in the Annals that he would compose his history "sine ira et studio," without anger and bitterness, rage and partiality, however one wishes to translate it. By Tacitus' time, of course, the forces of decline Sallust saw tearing Rome apart had completed their work. The Republic was gone, replaced by the Empire. Tacitus lamented this. Sallust, having lived through its twilight years, may perhaps have been less nostalgic.


Wednesday, 26 September 2012

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

In regards to Sallust as a historian, he does a wonderful job at covering two wars after the destruction of Carthage (146BC), which is considered by some to be the date at which the Roman morals fell, and the Roman Republic perished.

Catiline's Conspiracy:
Sallust discusses the Roman Senator, Catiline, who in 63BC, led a plot to overthrow the Roman Republic. Upon Cicero uncovering this, he ordered the conspirators be killed without trial, fearing that others would would rise up.

Although the style of the book is brief, with little time spent on the politics, opting more for long passages, rhetoric, and literary prose, Sallust is successful in conveying the problems with the Late Republic, whilst illuminating the personal characteristics of the men, which I thoroughly enjoy reading about.

The Jugurthine War:

Sallust continues his history of the fall of the Republic. Following the rise of Jugurtha of Numidia (northern Africa), who stated that 'at Rome anything could be bought', Sallust tracks the moral decay of Rome, whereby men cared more for their wealth than the wealth and safety of Rome.

Furthermore, the Jugurthine War is an early example of the consolidation of power into one man, who in this case is the Roman general, Gaius Marius, foreshadowing Sulla, and eventually Julius Caesar.

I thoroughly recommend this book. The writing is beautiful, the moral description of characters, although in the shadow of Plutarch, are a delight to read, and offer an interesting glimpse into the value system of 100 BC Romans.

I leave you with the descriptions of Jugurtha:

" As soon as Jugurtha grew up, endowed as he was with physical strength, a handsome person, but above all with a vigorous intellect, he did not allow himself to be spoiled by luxury or idleness, but following the custom of that nation, he rode, he hurled the javelin, he contended with his fellows in foot-races; and although he surpassed them all in renown, he nevertheless won the love of all. Besides this, he devoted much time to the chase, he was the first or among the first to strike down the lion and other wild beasts, he distinguished himself greatly, but spoke little of his own exploits."

[Caracalla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting historiography. Apart from Livy and Tacitus, there were a lot of pre-Augustan historians who wrote chronicles of recent history after they retired from political office: it would have been fascinating to have Piso Frugi's Stoic/moralistic account of the late Second Century or Asinius Pollio's eyewitness account of the Civil Wars. Sallust's 'Histories' is part of this historical genre and covered the 70s and 60s. They have survived in fragments which is a real shame but there are some very interesting speeches preserved, as much for their Thucydidean dense rhetoric as for the insight they provide into these years. These were years where the Sullan settlement was slowly dismantled but this process required several revolts by populares senators like Sertorius and Lepidus. Pompey rose to power in this period, defeating rebels and ending Mithridates' threat which had been continuous since the 90s. Sallust is a popularis himself and sees Pompey as a positive figure, able through his control of the army to break the conservative senatorial deadlock and restore old institutions like the tribunate. He is also a very sinister figure who makes the senatorial elite pathetically powerless and whose intentions Sallust entirely distrust.

The two other works in this are less interesting. The Catilinarian War is fairly literary, does not really have very much to report all said but does feature this astounding exchange of speeches between Caesar and Porcius Cato on whether to execute the conspirators or not. There lots of stoic allusions can be found, lots of eschatology, it's very strange stuff. The Jugurthine War is fairly interesting because it portrays the rise of Marius, who like Pompey broke the aristocratic clique through his ability as a general. Speeches by him and Memmius are very fun to read and it gives an interesting insight into the late Second Century and popularis politics close to the time of the Gracchi.

[Jimmy Lu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nothing can be better said of Catiline's conspiracy and the state of the republic than the exchange between Caesar and Cato.

C. Casear: "... who did not praise Sulla's deed when he ordered the butchering of Damasippus and the others of his kind ... But that affair was the start of a great disaster. For, whenever anyone desired someone's home or villa ... he did his best to ensure that the man was listed amongst the proscribed ... and there was no end to the butchery until Sulla had satisfied all his supporters with riches."

M. Cato: "Do not think that it was by arms that our ancestors made the Commonwealth great from being small ... But it was other things which made them great, and which we no longer have: industriousness at home, a just empire abroad, and a mind free in deliberation ... Instead of these, we praise riches and pursue idleness ... when you are the slaves of pleasure at home and of money or favour here - that is how an attack can be made on an abandoned Commonwealth."

An episode of political drama in a decadent republic grasping for its last breath. Must read!

[Joel · Rating 4 out of 5]

When Sallust digresses and comments on the morals of the time or the character of leaders, he is very interesting. When he writes history, I find him to be flat and a bit dull. These are momentous events but I was not gripped by them.

[Andrew Reece · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sallustius' Somber 'De Coniuratione Catilinae' & 'Bellum Jugurthinum' Chronicle The Sad Decline Of The Roman Republic.

Gaius Sallustius Crispus was a Roman historian whose career began in the Roman senate during the period of decline which preceded the Augustan era in the time of Julius Caesar. Sources such as St. Jerome tell us he was born in the year after Rome's 'Social War' in which the 'socii' or 'allies of Rome' waged war against Rome itself, winning to them official status as citizens of the republic. Sallust rose to distinction, & when he entered the field of Roman politics he became what the Romans classified as 'novus homo' or a 'new man' pertaining to his status as a senator. It means that Sallust succeeded in attaining to the position of senator without any hereditary assistance; he didn't get in easily because his father had been a senator, or his uncle. He achieved his rank based upon his own merits. In the year 50 B.C., Cassius Dio's work states that Sallust was removed from the senate for opprobrious conduct, but later after the rise of Julius Caesar he regained his previous rank & status. Caesar liked Sallust.

During his tenure as a politician Sallust held various elected positions, culminating with his appointment as governor over the Roman province of Africa Nova. According to what history tells, he was quite corrupt in his administration of the territory, while holding this position, leading to the acquisition of ill-begotten wealth & enabling Sallust to commission projects such as his famous 'Horti Sallustiani' or 'Gardens of Sallust' at the extravagant mansion he later had constructed in Rome.

Sallust is considered to be amongst the first Roman historians whose work has survived. His three works considered to be significant include 'De coniuratione Catilinae', a record of the famous Cataline Conspiracy in 63 B.C., 'Bellum Jugurthinum', a chronicle of of the Jugurthine War which pitted Rome against the Numidian king Jugurtha from 112-105 B.C., & 'Historiae' which is an extremely fragmented history of Rome from the years of 78-67 B.C. Sallust's work for the Penguin Classic edition is translated by A.J. Woodman who like other translators has a immense passion for his work that becomes quite apparent via the wonderful way in which the composition 'feels' as you read it. Woodman's introduction also provides to the reader his scholarly insight on remaining faithful to the source material, as well as the inherent pitfalls correlated with deviation or what I consider to be interpolation of someone's original words. He believes that it just corrupts the language, which I wholeheartedly agree with him on without hesitation.

When compared to other writers from antiquity such as Gaius Suetonius, Cornelius Tacitus, & the Elder & Younger Plinys, Sallust's particular style to me reads like it was written by someone who truly had a talent for manufacturing compelling literature. From the impression I derived after reading 'The Annals' & 'The Histories' I think Tacitus absolutely enjoyed the work he did, but he wasn't necessarily the best writer. His composition doesn't make the reader sit & ponder after reading it, & to me it didn't leave a lasting impression. Suetonius was effective at very different things, such as being able to make the reader laugh & also he was able to infuse his emotion & admiration for the men he wrote about, into his writing style. As a result, his very-unorthodox composition style & irregular organizational tendencies all of a sudden become endearing as opposed to annoying the reader. Pliny the Elder only has 'Naturalis Historiae' to evaluate his writing by, which is a work more of a scientific disposition than a historical one; the Younger Pliny's letters however do in my eyes reflect a refined, versatile literary style of writing that is indicative of the considerably diverse spectrum of positions he held in his career. He was a lawyer, a magistrate, a governor, each of which probably exposed him to many different people & thrust him into many different situations. When someone is given the opportunity to spread their wings & fulfill their potential, they are able to do so.

Sallust's narrative flows so smoothly to me, it's so effective & compelling that I literally feel like I'm reading one of George R.R. Martin's books, something like 'Fire & Blood' or 'The World of Ice & Fire' because it's written in a way that to me is demonstrative of an effort made on the part of the author not only to engage his audience but to keep him or her engaged for the entirety of the text. Sallust doesn't merely tell the reader, "Then this man went here, & met up with these people, they fought a war, then this happened..et cetera", he finds a way to convey something akin to what I just recreated but in a compelling manner. "It was with him that Cataline & Autronius around the Nones of December shared their scheme, & they were preparing to kill the consuls L. Cotta & L. Torquatus on the Capitol on the Kalends of January." Further down in the paragraph he continues, "And, had not Catiline been too speedy in giving the signal to his allies in front of the curia, the worst deed since the founding of the City of Rome would have been perpetrated on that day." This is actually interesting to read about! I think modern authors enjoy a fairly stable environment to develop their craft whereas those in antiquity endured a much more stressful lifestyle simply because civilization had not sufficiently developed to make that level of security possible. For a writer living during that time period to be as linguistically adept as Sallust most certainly was becomes all the more impressive.

Also, it assists tremendously that Sallust's 'Cataline War' & 'The Jurgathine War' both at their beginning have introductions woven into the writing devised so beautifully they slowly help the reader along, filling in what happened leading up to the events themselves. And Sallust's style is so subtle & nuanced that he's able to effectively convey his beliefs on which qualities of mankind make people good or evil in a way that completely abjures from employing any distasteful employment of expression resembling "This person is evil because of this reason" or "I believe that so-and-so was a good person". Sallust's base concepts of avarice & prowess, which Woodman helps to bring to our attention in the introduction by explaining his choices of using specific English words to translate from the original in Latin, are explored in depth as he utilizes them frequently when illustrating the events & the people on which his narratives are focused. I'm quite sure that the degree of success achieved with the flow of the writing is also in large part a result of Woodman's skills as a translator, which even though he very specifically & visibly states to the reader that his translation is as close as he could possibly make it to being faithful to the original Latin with no sacrifices made to the language in order to make this edition more easily readable on a mass level. You are able to infer quite easily through reading his introduction & preface what an intelligent man Woodman is & his complete abstinence in bringing to attention any of his own talents or skills effectively delineates that he also is an exceedingly modest one. He can abjure all he likes, but the superior-level quality of his translation work speaks for A.J. Woodman in a way that my words as well as anyone else's cannot.

If there exists a low point in this collection of Sallust's work its origins are a consequence of history's 'mala facinora' or 'wicked deeds' & not an author's or translator's inadequacy or lack of due diligence. Sallust's final work 'Histories' is rife with 'lacunae' or fragmentations of the original Latin manuscript. The extent material consists mainly of speeches & letters which only serve in making the reader's yearning to read what has been lost to the erosion of time & probably to humanity's destructive nature. However this unfortunate reality does not diminish the grandeur of Sallust's 'Cataline War' or 'The Jugurthine War' whatsoever. This isn't a long book, when the introductions & expanded notes are included the total page count runs at just over 200.

Historically, the earliest of Sallust's writings is 'The Jugurthine War' which takes place after the end of the Punic era following the fall of the brothers Gracchi. 'Cataline's War' however takes place shortly before the beginning of the first triumvirate which preceded the rise of Julius Caesar, but as I stated earlier in the review, Sallust's work is the earliest known Roman historical records so there is no prior background history with which the reader can familiarize his or herself; this is pretty much the starting point. This means that you can more-or-less dive right in, however if you would like to read an author from (very) roughly the same era with a slightly-easier-to-read linguistic style of composition I would recommend to you 'The Twelve Caesars' by Gaius Suetonius as it's written in a way that while providing a challenge, still will make you smile & laugh at both Suetonius' eccentricities & the way he describes the twelve Roman emperors in their biographies. 'The Twelve Caesars' would be a good choice for those seeking to become familiar with the verbiage for linguistic experience if not the historical background.

[Mark Zhang · Rating 4 out of 5]

Catilinarian Conspiracy - how relevant to the modern landscape of the Republic I call home. We see through Sallust a description of an increasingly decadent society at all strata (mind you that Sallust himself was a participant in much of the ignominious activity he deplores). Sallust details to us how the unrestrained powers of the aristocrats, the increasingly ruthless partisan fighting, and the generations of impotent men weened on the fruits of peace created by their forefathers ultimately set up the perfect powderkeg for a period of civil strife. Catiline's attempted coup is only a symptom of the ongoing degradation of Republican institutions - the Senate and People of Rome had long lost the virtues that gave Rome its glory.

I really enjoyed the speeches of Caesar and Cato, as well as the way Sallust characterized both (I'd expected his populares bias to spillover but was surprised at his treatment of both views).

Jugurthine War - much more interesting storytelling, and incredibly harsh assessments of political greed and the avarice of the conscript fathers. In Rome, everything is for sale. One wonders if Jugurtha was just a little more wealthy could he simply have bought out the entire city? This account has some of the most interesting anecdotes - a mountain fortress falling because a Ligurian was hungry for escargot and climbed up the back hunting for snails - Jugurtha using infinite money to cheat his way out of tough situations - Marius the self-starter betraying his boss and stealing the command.

These stories make me wonder how our own histories will be recorded and by whom.

[Jason Goetz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much of Sallust's history of Catiline's conspiracy runs parallel to Cicero's account of the mess as documented in his (very self-serving) speeches as Consul to the Senate. As this strange and somewhat revolting movement is one of the most fascinating in all of ancient history, it deserves a careful look by students who appreciate the stability of existing institutional structures.

The History of the Jugurthine War, as the back cover indicates, contains a damning critique of the aristocracy. But it is not simply anti-aristocratic, because Sallust is equally critical of the general populace and he appears more or less even-handed. Sulla's behavior is an interesting case study if only for what we know of his later character, that hideous exemplar of unparalleled cruelty and madness. Jugurtha's character is also a tempting case study, as he is the direct predecessor to Hitler in terms of demanding territory, justifying himself, insisting he will want no more, and then upon receiving it promptly demanding more territory. One can easily envision Churchill listening to a radio news broadcast in the 1930s, hearing of Hitler's rise and demands, turning it off and opening this fine book, and his eyes opening wide and his jaw dropping in disbelief.

There is not much to say about the Histories other than what it fails to say for itself at this point. The manuscript is too tattered to have virtually any meaning.

[Jeni Enjaian · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only reason that this book did not earn 4 stars is because I'm not a huge fan of the style typical of Roman historians (all the speeches and the like). This book, however, reads very well. The introduction is fantastic. The translator competently explains the difficulty in translation, how he attempted to solve it and a little bit about Sallust himself. The translator also gives an introduction before each section describing Sallust's purposes and placing the work in historical context. I recommend this book for anyone wanting to learn more about Roman history.

[Jordi Polo Carres · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesantisimo libro con dos historias que Sallust vivio en su epoca.

La conspiracion de Cataline y la rebelion de Jugurthine.

Es interesante como de diferente seria la historia si cualquiera de estos eventos hubiera ocurrido de otra manera. Cataline no estuvo tan lejos de ganar sus batallas, otros lo hicieron antes y otros lo harian despues.

De la misma manera, Roma podia haber decidido evitar la guerra con Jugurthine o el podia no haberla forzado, con lo que quiza hoy toda esa zona (Argelia) seria bastante distinta.

[Hayley · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sallust's jaded and dark outlook on the fate of Rome is endlessly quotable and entertaining - if one has a morbid sense of entertainment. Certainly the Romans did, much more than the Greeks. Sallust's narratives of Catiline's Conspiracy, the Jugurthine War and the remaining fragments of his Histories are well worth reading if your intent is to get a sense of the late Republic as it careened towards Empire.

[James Violand · Rating 4 out of 5]

A conspiracy to overthrow the Roman Republic is exposed by the prosecutor Cicero. It made Cicero's career. You must know quite a bit of how Roman government had been run in order to follow the tortuous path of discovering the culprits and bringing them to justice. Our system is far more efficient.

[Kelsey · Rating 4 out of 5]

I mostly used BJ... hardly touched BC (hope to read at leisure later) and used the speeches of Lepidus and Aemilius from the Histories. Sallust was cool. His own story is an interesting one - a nobile doing a very un-nobile activity - history - and it's fascinating how he used created 'speeches' to get his message and point of view across.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seems like the Republic is in rough shape with all these unscrupulous people running around and no-one left who cares about doing things the way our ancestors did. That Marius guy, he seems pretty impressive but I'm a little wary of him. Maybe that nice L. Sulla he has in Numidia with him will restrain his worst impulses and restore the Republic to glory.

Or then again, maybe not.

[Danielle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Accessible translation with helpful notes. Sallust is a great story teller and he truly starts the trend of the bad guy you love to hate and secretly root for. A must read for anyone interested in Roman Republican history.

[Jeremy Egerer · Rating 5 out of 5]

A history of treachery, heroism, and manliness during the decline of the Roman republic. Strangely parallels our dealings with the Middle East and terrorism; the speeches from the different parties alone make this volume worth a read.

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Still failing to understand the importance of this conspiracy... To much importance has been given to this I think. Nonetheless a good opportunity to read about the senators and their magnificently persuasive speeches. The Romans are certainly the masters of rhetoric.

[Eadweard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pity the Histories are just fragments.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't believe a word he says.

[Zachary Rudolph · Rating 5 out of 5]

“After he left Rome, however, it is said that he often looked back silently in that direction, finally saying that ‘it was a city for sale and soon to be doomed — if only it found a buyer’.”

[Marcos Augusto · Rating 5 out of 5]

His first monograph, Bellum Catilinae (43–42 bc; Catiline’s War), deals with corruption in Roman politics by tracing the conspiracy of Catiline, a ruthlessly ambitious patrician who had attempted to seize power in 63 bc after the suspicions of his fellow nobles and the growing mistrust of the people prevented him from attaining it legally. Catiline was supported by certain members of the upper classes who were prompted either by ambition or by the hope of solving their financial problems by Catiline’s accession to power. But he also had the backing of Italy’s dissatisfied veterans, impoverished peasants, and overburdened debtors. In Sallust’s view, Catiline’s crime and the danger he presented were unprecedented. Indeed, alarmed contemporaries may have exaggerated the significance of the incident; yet, had the government not acted as firmly as it did (effectively declaring martial law), a catastrophe could have occurred. Sallust describes the course of the conspiracy and the measures taken by the Senate and Cicero, who was then consul. He brings his narrative to a climax in a senatorial debate concerning the fate of the conspirators, which took place on Dec. 5, 63. In Sallust’s eyes, not Cicero but Caesar and Cato represented civic virtue and were the significant speakers in the debate; he regarded the deaths of Caesar and Cato as marking the end of an epoch in the history of the republic. A digression in this work indicates that he considered party strife as the principal factor in the republic’s disintegration.

In Sallust’s second monograph, Bellum Jugurthinum (41–40 bc; The Jugurthine War), he explored in greater detail the origins of party struggles that arose in Rome when war broke out against Jugurtha, the king of Numidia, who rebelled against Rome at the close of the 2nd century bc. This war provided the opportunity for the rise to the consulship of Gaius Marius, who, like Sallust and Cicero, was a “new man.” His accession to power represented a successful attack on the traditionally exclusive Roman political elite, but it caused the kind of political conflict that, in Sallust’s view, resulted in war and ruin. Sallust considered Rome’s initial mismanagement of the war the fault of the “powerful few” who sacrificed the common interest to their own avarice and exclusiveness. Political turmoil in Rome during the late republic had social and economic causes (not overlooked by Sallust), but essentially it took the form of a power struggle between the aristocratic group in control of the Senate and those senators who enlisted popular support to challenge the oligarchy. This is the underlying framework of Sallust’s schematic analysis of the events of that time—the clash between the nobility, or Senate, and the people, or plebeians.

The Histories, of which only fragments remain, describes the history of Rome from 78 to at least 67 bc on a year-to-year basis. Here Sallust deals with a wider range of subject matter, but party conflict and attacks on the politically powerful remain a central concern. Hints of hostility to the Triumvirate on Sallust’s part may be detected in both Bellum Jugurthinum and the Histories. Two “Letters to Caesar” and an “Invective Against Cicero,” Sallustian in style, have often been credited, although probably incorrectly, to Sallust; the former title was attributed to him by the 1st-century-ad Roman educator Quintilian.

[Lukerik · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Jugurthine War is a particularly good read. An interesting story, well told. Jugurtha starts off as a kind of ideal Roman-type youth, but is corrupted by Rome. The Romans attempt to defeat him but cannot due to their own corruption. Eventually they win by deploying Marius, who represents a return to traditional plebeian values. There’s a neat artistry to the whole thing. So neat that it reads more like a novel and made me wonder how much of it is actually true. I should think it would be quite easy to spin the story otherwise. I’ve read Livy’s account of Masinissa. He’s surely the coolest monarch ever to mount a horse. All the effort he put in to keeping his country independent while the Romans made war on his neighbour. And he pulled it off. Now here are his grandchildren screwing it all up. Yet you can see Jugurtha is something of a chip off the old block, and the story could be spun as a tragedy. But Sallust has a set agenda. He’s interested in the rot at the heart of the Roman republic.

Catiline’s War shares the same interest but is very obviously a first book. My understanding is that Sallust tried to write using as few words as possible. It’s painfully apparent here. The speeches given by the consul at the time have survived and they run to many times the length of Sallust’s account of the whole affair. Sallust doesn’t come off particularly well. He was a corrupt politician who got away with it because he was friends with Julius Caesar. After Caesar was murdered he retired and took to writing about a corrupt politician. He tells us how sorry he is for having been corrupt. Well, at least he knows about his subject matter. But is he really sorry, or is he just trying to improve his public image? I note that he didn’t stop enriching himself until he was forced to. Now, the passages where he talks about this are not long but they stand out because the whole book is so short. In Jugurthine’s War he’s learnt a bit about writing and his viewpoint in incorporated into the artistry of the book. Still, it’s an interesting account of an interesting time. Life-defining for everyone involved, but of little consequence to the flow of Roman history. And from what I can see Sallust was correct about the rot at the heart of the republic. It was about to fall.

[Erik Champenois · Rating 4 out of 5]

These three works of Sallust - Catiline's War, the Jugurthine War, and excerpts from his Histories - exemplify how narratives around the "rise and fall" and corruption of Rome were not later inventions, but a staple of the Romans themselves.

The Jugurthine Wars, which covers the wars against the Numidians in Northern Africa, are the earliest chronologically - with Sallust critiquing how money, lobbyism, and personal and political connections resulted in the Romans initially not responding to King Jugurtha's military ventures. Catiline's War portrays Catiline, twice defeated in consular elections, conspired to take power - but was thwarted before the attempted coup began, and eventually killed in battle. Catiline, whose attempted coup was fundamentally a result of him not getting the power he thought was his due, was both an attempt to model Sulla's successful dictatorship, and a premonition of future attempts to power by people who thought that power was their due, including most notably Caesar and Augustus. In the Histories, Sallust further laments the corruption of the Romans, including one speech making the accusation that "formerly, public wickedness was organized secretly, assistance openly, and for that reason the good easily forestalled the wicked; but now peace and harmony are disrupted openly and defended secretly."

Sallust's portrayal of this period - roughly 110 to 63 BC - shows a Rome ruled by aristocrats, and by money and corruption, with elite figures taking power by thriving on political polarization - and with divisions in the elite presaging civil conflict - as well as differences regarding foreign policy. While not an exact parallel, the late Roman republic seems to be reminiscent of the (hopefully not late stage) current United States, which similarly experiences the heavy influence of money in politics, politicians thriving on political polarization, and foreign influences in domestic politics.

[Matthew Bloomquist · Rating 4 out of 5]

The way Sallust presents Catiline’s Conspiracy and the unfolding dialogues is fascinating. There is a great tension in the relationship between virtue and vice to be pondered. Sallust portrays this in the way he condemns the vices of Catiline’s character and lust for wealth and power while simultaneously commending his virtuous courage and justified grounds for uprising. This philosophical balance is also displayed in both the virtuous yet opposed responses of Caesar and Cato. The former favoring mercy the latter justice.

“Caesar was considered great for his benevolence and generosity; Cato for integrity of life. The forever was made famous by his compassion and mercy; intolerance added to the latter’s stature. They both attained glory: Caesar by giving, helping, forgiving, Cato by not bribing. In one there was refuge for the wretched, in the other death for the wicked.”