No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Among much else that has been written on Sallust recently, we have been informed or reminded of his ‘deep antipathy’ for Cicero among the political figures of his own day (Syme, Tacitus, 1958, 203), whilst it is Scaurus ‘whom he hates especially’ (K. von Fritz, TAPh. A 74, 1943, 145) of the nobility of the Jugurthine War period. We believe these two judgments to be essentially correct, although ‘hatred’ for one who was not a contemporary is perhaps too strong a term in the case of Scaurus. In the case of Cicero, indeed, it is still a matter for argument how far a dislike on Sallust's part is revealed in the Catilina, which we do not propose to re-argue; for us, not only Sallust's ‘curious and elaborate creation of an anti-Ciceronian style’ (Syme, l.e., cf. E. Sikes, CAH IX, 769), but still more the way in which he deliberately proceeds to glorify Caesar and Cato in Cicero's annus mirabilis seems sufficient evidence of his attitude to the latter; nor should the –Invective necessarily be rejected as evidence, however much we may doubt its authen-ticity, since even a bogus document must be basically plausible if it is to gain any acceptance. Our purpose here, rather, is to seek the common ground of Sallust's dislikes; to suggest that the attitude of Sallust to Cicero may help to explain his hostile representation of Scaurus and that, by a corollary, the latter confirms the former.
1 Bibliography to 1956:–Leeman, A. D., Bibliographia Sallustiana, Leiden, 1952Google Scholar; Sallust (A. Kurfess, Teubner, 1957) XVI–XVIII and Addenda 199–200.
2 Certainly von Fritz (l.e. 168) overstates in asserting that ‘Sallust tries to create the impression that … the leaders of the popular party … were always working for the true good of the country’; cf. the activity of the Mamilian Commission ‘magis odio nobilitatis … quam cura reipublicae’ (BJ 40, 3.).
3 For a discussion, concluding that Cicero is given his due, but ‘by stealth’, cf. Broughton, T. R. S., TAPhA 67, 1936, 34 ffGoogle Scholar.
4 Even Jerome's, St. statement that Terentia ‘nupsit Sallustio, inimico eius (sc. Ciceronis)’ (In Jovin. I, 48Google Scholar (Migne., Pat. Lat. XXXIII, 292Google Scholar) may have some basis for the latter part of it independent of the Invective.
5 But ‘quia tune primum superbiae nobilitatis obviam itum est’ (BJ 5, 1) should not be quoted as evidence of this; it need imply nothing more than that Sallust claims for his theme a great conflict, internal as well as external—contrast Tacitus' envy of his predecessors: ‘ingentia illi bella … plebis et optimatium certamina … memorabant’ (Ann. IV, 32).
6 Nor would Rutilius Rufus' memoirs necessarily give an unfavourable picture of Scaurus, in spite of their conflict in the consular elections for 115 (Cic., Brut. 30, 113Google Scholar, de Orat. II, 70, 280), if Badian is right as to their later association in politics (Athen. XXXIV, 1956, 104 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 112, n. 1).
7 (a) Pliny, NH 36, 116–where Fraccaro (‘Scauriana,’ Rend. Ace. Linc. 1911, 20) found Lange's emendation ‘Magiani’ (cf. Cic., de orat. II, 66, 265Google Scholar) attractive, though without MS support; at best ‘Mariani sodalicii rapinarum provincialium sinus’ is of doubtful import. Badian's interpretation (tentative) of it—l.c. 120, n. 3—is almost too ingenious.
(b) de vir. ill. 72: ‘Marium (Scaurus) … privato consilio armaret’ is given undue significance by Passerini (l.c. 280): it need only suggest the delicate negotiations necessary (cf. Plut., Marius 30, 2Google Scholar) to detach Marius from his alliance with the demagogues, even though that alliance ‘non fu e non dovette essere così sincera come si può credere’. As Badian remarks (l.c. 119, n. 5) Scaurus' and Marius', ‘connections, actions and interests were opposed’: cf. his Foreign Clientelae, Oxford, 1958, 195Google Scholar.
8 We shall not give exhaustive references to incidents in Scaurus' career where nothing depends on them.
9 l.c.; n. 6 above.
10 Asc, p. 21 (Clark).
11 cf. (e.g.) Varro, ap. Non. p. 308; Sallust, , BJ 41, 5Google Scholar.
12 For a contrary view, cf. Fraccaro, l.c. 9.
13 Fraccaro, however, suggests that Scaurus wished to complete putting his Lex de libertinorum suffragiis into effect (l.c. 12).
14 Bloch (o. c. 61–3) suggested that Scaurus may have urged concessions to the Italians long before 91 (in which case his support of Drusus in that year need not have been only a matter of tactics), thus being able to rely on ‘amicos ac maxime … homines nominis Latini et socios Italicos’ (BJ 40, 2) n 109. Cic., de orat. II, 64, 257Google Scholar, seems surer evidence of Scaurus' attitude to the Italians, however, —a quotation of his on the occasion of Norbanus' trial? (cf. Fraccaro, l.c. 15 and, for date and circumstances of trial, Badian, Hist. VI, 1957, 310Google Scholar ff.); it is still possible, of course, that Scaurus was genuinely ‘converted’ later for the sake of wider interests than his own.
15 ‘the mediocrity of their coevals and of their seniors in the governing order’ is, indeed, thereby shown up (Syme, Tacitus 568), but Sallust intends this passage, we believe, as more than an oblique criticism of the nobiles.
16 The references to Cato in the 2nd Suasoria (4, 2; 9, 3) offer, of course, a very different picture. But the arguments of Last (CQ 17, 87 ff., 151 ff.; 18, 83 ff.) still seem decisive in face of much that has been written or tacitly assumed since concerning the authenticity of this document. The arguments from style simply (Fraenkel, , JRS 41, 194Google Scholar; cf. Latte, K., JRS 27, 300–1Google Scholar) are only less decisive in so far as it is possible to emphasize the unique nature of the Suasoriae as ‘open’ letters which would make difficult any dogmatic statement as to their appropriate style. On artificial letters, cf. Henderson, M. I., JRS, XL, 16 ffGoogle Scholar.
17 This fact, clear from Cicero's letters, would have made Cicero's laudatio Catonis (ad Att. 12, 4, 2 etc.Google Scholar) all the more interesting.
18 Found also, of course, outside the pro Scauro, e.g. pro Sestio 47, 101, pro Font. II, 24. Not that Cicero was unaware of Scaurus' weaknesses: cf. pro Font. l.c., de Orat. II, 70, 283 and 69, 280.
19 An important element, no doubt, in his value to the plebeian Metelli, who needed influence in the religious colleges at the time of such politico-religious squalls as led to the Rogatio Peducaea (cf. Greenidge and Clay, Sources 46).
20 For Testimonia, cf. Sallust, Teubner, 1957, XXII–XXXI.