604. SALLUST . RONALD SYME.- Summary

604.  SALLUST . RONALD SYME. Quintillian says that Sallust was the greatest historian.  Syme suggests that he also may have been a brave historian.  It is possible that he wrote during the 2nd Triumvirate.  If so, he offered heavy and subtle criticism of the times and manner of the 2nd Triumvirate. 
Sallust, Syme asserts, was attempting to establish reasons for the fall of the Republic by juxtaposing Caesar and Cato.  Both had qualities which could have saved the state but Caesar chose to guard his own dignitas and Cato was forced to support Pompey whom he did not trust or admire.  Also by giving Cicero more praise than is generally thought Sallust took a risk in holding up Cicero as a quality leader at a time when recently he had been put to death by the hostile Triumvirs.  Also Cicero had legally handled the Catilinarian crisis whereas the Triumvirs acted savagely.
Sallust’s purpose and the Bellum Catilinae.
Quick synopsis of Conspiracy of Catilina.  Catilina was from an old patrician family which had lost prominence in the Republic.  He was a clever, active, intelligent man who also possessed dangerous attributes.  He was devious, almost completely lacking in morals and committed to his own career.  He formed a conspiracy.  This conspiracy was exposed by Cicero while he, Cicero, was consul.  Catiline and his fellow conspirators were defeated in battle.  Catilina’s associates in Rome were condemned by the Senate.  Cicero had the sentence carried out.  Several years later Cicero was exiled in a very complicated process for these executions.
If Sallust had wished to attack and belittle Cicero, the climate of the 2nd Triumvirate favored it.  Instead Cicero is held up as a consul who showed restraint, acted with the support of the Senate and later was exiled for it.  This contrasts sharply with events of Sallust’s own time. Cicero saved the Republic from a noble who sought only his own benefit.  This stands in stark contrast to the manner and acts of Octavian.  Syme says that Sallust even used Caesar as a weapon against the Triumvirs.  He practiced good sense and pity during the war.  He favored accommodation.  Not so the Triumvirs.  Plus Sallust used Cato as a hammer against the Nobles whom Sallust feels as a group lacked patriotism and commitment.  In stead they pursued selfish goals at the expense of liberty.
Sallust idealized Cato to attack the Triumvirs.  Thus a charge can be brought against Sallust- he bent history for his own purpose.  Syme replies “ There are worse things, such as subservience to power.”
He even uses Catiline against the Nobles.  He, a Noble, endangered the Republic in whose keeping the Republic had been placed.  Cato is used to expose the responsibilities the Nobles had abandoned.
Syme says that Sallust was against Nobilitas.  It lost position of authority because it sought honor (office) for personal power.
Syme says the the date of publication has bearing on interpretation of the Bellum Catilinae.  This is very interesting for a number of reasons.  Some have been noted above.  Here is a new one. 
If the work was published during the Triumviral period, then the mention of Tiberius Claudius Nero who made a proposal during the debate on what to do with the conspirators may have been done to contrast unfavorably with the actions of his son during the time of the Triumvirs who was acting in a self-serving way.
Sallust may be suggesting that any government which allowed Catiline to make the attempt and almost succeed in his rise to power was sick.
Bellum Jugurthinum.
Brief synopsis:  Scipio Africanus formed an alliance with Masinissa.  He died during the 2nd Punic War.  His son, Micipsa, ruled next.  Micipsa even sent troops to Spain to help the Romans against Numantia.  These troops were led by Jugurtha.  He impressed Scipio Aemilianus.  He, Jugurtha, was adopted by Micipsa.  Micipsa dies. Jugurtha and sons of Micipsa argue.  One son dies, the other goes to Rome to make his appeal.  The Senate’s decision- divide the country between surviving son and Jugurtha (117/116 BC).  During struggle between the two last son dies at Cirta.  Complications arose because many Romans and Italians died there too.  In 111 BC Lucius Cornelius Bestia, a consul, was sent to northern Africa.
There are three phases.
lst- Bestia hesitates.  Seeks compromise and displays criminal incompetence.  Next Consul, Spurius Postumius Albinus is a failure.
2nd- Quintus Caecilius Metellus (109 BC) is very energetic but in the time allowed is unsuccessful.
3rd- Gaius Marius defeats Jugurtha.
War and politics are intertwined.  There are two conflicts.  One is against Jugurtha, the other against the Nobilitas.
Sallust uses digressions to help with transitions from one part of the narrative to the next.  This provides a pause.  Adds variety.
In his view the key to history is politics.  With dramatic presentations and psychological analysis as tools to understand that history. Consequently he is weak on accuracy of troop movements.
His basic theme in the Bellum Jugurthinum is that empire brought the worst in the nobilitas.  It revealed their weakness for glory and self-promotion.  These effected traits of courage, honesty, decency, restraint, etc.
Assessing Sallust.
Syme offers an interesting assessment of the origin of current feeling that Sallust disliked Cicero.  Sallust created an anti-ciceronian style.  This is the source of the “hostility”.  Syme says that Sallust should be viewed as the model of writing for the Empire. 
(Sallust seems to me to weaken his own case, when he casts into doubt the quality of every single politician in Rome. He does not see them as people but as misfits.  Or perhaps he figures that all others were at heart like every body else.  Or perhaps he lacked better understanding of politics.  Or perhaps the politics of his present (42 BC) clouded the reality of 20 years before.  His style is wonderful.  His make valuable contribution to our knowledge of Roman history.  His initial thoughts are negative.)
I enjoyed this book very, very much.