Kraus, 'Sallust: the Histories', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9408
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9408-kraus-sallust
Patrick McGushin, Sallust: the Histories. Volume II. Books
iii-v. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Pp. x + 259. $45.00.
ISBN 0-19-872143-9.
Reviewed by Christina S. Kraus -- New York University
This volume completes M[cGushin]'s translation of and
commentary on the fragments of S[allust]'s Histories for
the Clarendon Ancient History Series (Volume I, Books i-ii was
published in 1992). Despite its lack of a Latin text, this
edition was sorely needed and is greatly welcome: Reynolds'
admirable OCT (1991) printed a new text of the letters and
speeches, together with many of the more important fragments, but
this is the first modern edition of the whole work, incorporating
some fragments discovered since Maurenbrecher's critical edition
of 1893. This lack of attention surprises. The Histories,
an annalistic treatment of Roman history, both res
internae and res externae, from 78 to 67 BCE, are the
best preserved of all the fragmentary pre-Livian annalistic
histories, and as such are crucially important in any attempt to
characterize that earlier tradition before Livy put his
ineradicable stamp on it. Any pioneering work has its pluses and
its minuses, but whatever my reservations about this one, I wish
to stress at the outset that everyone interested in S. will want
to own M.'s book.
M. relies to a considerable extent on Maurenbrecher's
reconstruction of the work's structure, while also incorporating
the modifications of LaPenna and others. His explication of the
original plot of the book is admirable, esp. his treatment of the
Wrong but Romantic rebel Spartacus (pp.110-12: no mention,
though, of oysters or snails...), and he pays close attention to
the contexts of the indirect tradition, often with interesting
results (cf. his note on camels, 3.29). I wonder, given the
recall at Liv. 5.48.7 (the Roman defenders during the Gallic
siege) postremo spe quoque iam non solum cibo deficiente et
cum stationes procederent prope obruentibus infirmum corpus
armis of 3.28 (3.40M) ut sustinere corpora plerique
nequeuntes arma sua quisque stans incumberet, whether the
latter might not be from a description of the besieged at Cyzicus
rather than from one of Lucullus' marching army. The biggest
change that M. makes is to reject Maurenbrecher's grouping
together of fragments dealing with res minores,
unimportant events which nevertheless drag on for more than one
year, on the grounds that S. followed a strict--and
Thucydidean--chronological arrangement, (pp.13-14, 64). He does
not mention, however, the two instances where Tacitus pointedly
joins events of more than one year, once (A. 6.38.1)
joining res externae for two consecutive years to relieve
the reader's tedium, again (A. 12.40.6) putting together
events ne diuisa haud perinde ad memoriam sui
ualerent--precisely the sort of rationale to which
Maurenbrecher appealed for his proposed grouping of res
minores. The Tacitean passages do not prove that S. did the
same thing, but they suggest that it was a real possibility.
More serious, to my mind, is M.'s disregard for his author's
relation to historians aside from Thucydides. While no one would
question S.'s debt to his great predecessor (on which M. might
have referred the reader to T.F. Scanlon, The influence of
Thucydides upon Sallust, 1980), just as interesting and
important is the status of the Histories in the Latin
historiographical tradition. M. treats S.'s place in and reaction
to this tradition in his Commentary on 1.1-15; in the
Introduction, however, which is repeated almost verbatim in Vol.
II (with no indication that it is being so repeated), he mentions
only Thucydides as a model (pp. 14-15). Reference at least to the
notes on the programmatic preface would be most helpful for a
reader trying to situate S. in his native tradition.
M. warns the non-historian at the beginning of Vol. I that
philological and grammatical points are treated 'only where they
have a bearing on the historical content of the fragments' (p.
21): there are however places throughout Vol. II where some
treatment of historiographical and narrative topoi would have
helped elucidate S.'s sense of how history is written. For
example, M. does not mention the debate over the extent to which
individual historians inserted speeches of their own free
composition into their histories; he remarks only (p.87) that
'Sallust ... who took care to arrange his material to produce
desired effects on his readers, undoubtedly contributed to
[Macer's] speech as we now have it.' Yes, indeed: and M. could
usefully have adduced frag. 10 of Uncertain Reference (1.76M)
in hunc modum disseruit, a tag widely recognized to be a
Sallustian manner of flagging a speech as 'like life' (cf.
BC 20.1 with M.'s own note). He accepts that Mithridates'
letter (4.67) is 'an extremely skilful exercise by S. in the
genre of deliberative oratory,' a suasoria (p.174). Given
this, parallels from real showpiece suasoriae, such as
those slightly later ones preserved by Seneca the Elder, might
have illuminated S.'s technique, esp. since M. is at some pains
to bring out the rhetorical structure and colores used in
the letter. Other points that could be further explained by
historiographical parallels include Macer's assertion that he is
acting solus in trying to restore tribunician rights
(3.34.5), which M. surmises might have been because his fellow
tr. plebis had been suborned (pp. 88-9). That motif shows
up frequently in Livy (e.g. 6.35.6), but the naming of only the
tribune active in working for reform is also typical (cf.
BJ 27.2, Liv. 6.6.1), and is not necessarily evidence that
the others were corrupted. So too Macer's accusations that the
patricians are using war as a pretext (3.34.6) and are trying to
bribe the plebs (3.34.19) are topoi, while his reference to
plebeian 'magistrates' (3.34.3), while perhaps 'misleading'
(p.88), is standard (e.g. Liv. 2.33.1), and parallels to it and
the accompanying idea that the plebs occupied a separate city
(e.g. Liv. 2.24.1) would have enhanced M.'s note on the ius
gentium at 3.34.17. In general, one misses reference to
Seager's articles on popularis rhetoric (CQ 22
(1972) 328-38; 27 (1977) 377-90). M. also lets 'tyrant' topoi go
unnoted, e.g. pp.127-8 on Sertorius: 'He became isolated,
reclusive, and exercised his power in overbearing fashion (Diod.
37.22a; Liv. Per. 92 and 96) ... "[he] was never without
his bodyguard of spearmen" [=App. BC 1.113]'. True or not,
these are standard anti-tyrannical accusations; if S.'s treatment
of Sertorius was a main source for these later portraits, then it
appears that he used the tyrant stereotype to explain Sertorius'
downfall, as Tacitus would later use it against Tiberius and
others.
Ethnographical topoi, too, receive short shrift, though there
are several geographical excursuses in Books 3-5. S.'s
description of the Black Sea (3.43-59), for instance, elicits
much valuable comment from M. It would also be useful, however,
to have notes on the method of organization that S. uses (as of a
traveler, describing things as he goes along: the order is
mentioned on p.103 but no parallels given); on his description of
the shape of the Black Sea (3.44): M. has a long note on what a
Scythian bow looked like, but for the comparison of a
geographical shape to a familiar object cf. Tac. Ag. 10.3
with Ogilvie-Richmond, and cross-refer to M. on 2.2 (Sardinia the
shape of a human foot); or on the stress on nomadism (3.53, 3.56)
which is characteristic of such ethnographies (cf. R.F. Thomas,
Lands and peoples [1982] 5). The Letter of Mithridates,
famous as an attack on Roman imperialism from the pen of a Roman
writer, would benefit from comparison with other such
documents--e.g. the speech of Pontius the Samnite at Liv.
9.1.3-11, or Calgacus at Tac. Ag. 30-2--as these attacks
became something of a genre in themselves.
Thirdly, M. sometimes misses narrative moves familiar from
S.'s monographs and from other history, which could help the
reader see the continuity between the Histories and the
rest of the tradition. For example, the character sketch of
Lucullus (4.69), 'apart from the immoderate desire that his
command should be prolonged, he was considered outstanding in
other respects': this singling out of one (often negative)
element is a typical element in historiographical character
assessments, esp. of great men (cf. 2.18 modestus ad alia
omnia nisi ad dominationem, 3.3, Liv. frag. Book 120
omnium aduersorum nihil ut uiro dignum erat tulit praeter
mortem, Vell. 20.3 ciuis in toga, nisi ubi uereretur ne
quem haberet parem, modestissimus, 46.2 uir cetera
sanctissimus with Woodman's n.); in this case, moreover, M's
translation loses the typically Sallustian bite of the original:
imperii prolatandi percupidus habebatur, cetera egregius.
Frag. 17 of Unc. Ref., about a beautiful woman, possibly a
conspirator, misses a parallel with Sempronia; and for that
matter, the Ligurian who answers the call of nature at frag. 39
of Unc. Ref., whom M. compares to the snail-tracking Ligurian of
BJ 93.2, should have a cross-reference to the menstruating
women of 4.34--in each case, an episode beneath the dignity of
history finds its place therein because the characters, engaged
in private pursuits, suddenly end up in the wrong--or the
right--place at the right time (cf. Fabia at Liv. 6.34.6-10). At
4.67.21, extinguent omnia aut occident, M. correctly takes
the latter verb as from 'die' rather than 'kill': S. seems to be
varying the typical polar expression 'kill or be killed,' and one
thinks of Liv. praef. 12 desiderium ... pereundi
perdendique omnia. Lastly, on 3.77-8, M. rejects Appian's
report of an early, frustrated attempt against Sertorius' life to
which Maurenbrecher assigned these fragments; but his own account
of Tarquitius' role in the main (and successful) assassination
attempt is not convincing, and though Appian can be 'shown to be
confused and unreliable on many other matters' (p.128), it may be
worth noting that S. seems to have liked these unsuccessful
'first' conspiracies: cf. BC 18 (the Pisonian conspiracy),
BJ 70-2 (an intercepted letter betrays a plot against
Jugurtha).
Finally, the translation. On the whole this is very good
indeed: literate, sensible, with clear discussions of variants
when M.'s text diverges from Reynolds' or from Maurenbrecher's.
M. does have a tendency to euphemize (e.g. 3.34.2 capessundam
.. libertatem = 'the recovery of your liberty,' missing both
the sense 'seize' (OLD 1) and the allusion to capessere
rem publicam, 'to take part in government'; 3.34.3 pellere
dominatione incipiam = 'whose domination I am seeking to
overthrow,' missing the metaphor; 3.48 Aeetae hospitis domum
uiolasse = 'violate the hospitality received in the house of
King Aeetes,' where I think there is a more specific reference to
the seduction of Medea; 3.88 'cover their bare
bodies with skins' loses the pun intectum ... tegunt;
frag. 26 of Unc. Ref. laborare festinare = 'they worked
.. without respite,' losing the effect of the asyndeton
bimembre); or to over-translate (e.g. 3.27 simplici
morte = 'the normal kind of death': M. explains his reasons,
but the point of the Latin, as he notes (pp.82-3), is that the
deaths were unusual deaths because caused by more than one
means--why, then, lose the sense of simplex?; 3.34.21
delenimenta = 'plans to ingratiate themselves with you';
4.41 ut tabes in urbem coierit = 'has penetrated the city
and spread like a disease' (where M. accepts the MS reading,
which I cannot translate, instead of Aldus' coniectus;
mention could also have been made in the Commentary ad
loc. of the three other places where S. uses disease metaphor
of corruption, BC 10.6, 36.5, BJ 32.4, twice with
tabes and inuado, cf. also Liv. 2.23.6); 4.67.13
mea dicta 'my prediction'; 4.67.16 belli prudentes
= 'trained in warfare with the Romans' ). I am not sure, either,
of 3.64A sudes 'spears': given the context (improvised
weapons), 'stakes' would be better (OLD 1b, cf. Tac.
A. 4.51.1 with Martin-Woodman's n.); 4.26 scissum
'worn away'--why not 'divided' (OLD 3a)?; 4.47 scalas
pares moenium altitudine = 'ladders which were equal to the
walls in height,' though Arusianus quoted this as an illustration
of par + abl. (so 'equal to the height of the walls');
4.59 postero die is left out; 4.60 'five hundred' is not
in the Latin; 4.73 'because of the spaciousness of the area'
seems to be rather a reason for enthusiastic attack than for
retreat, and 'wavering' might be better here than 'forced to give
way' for inclinatos; 5.13 militum uoluntatem
= 'state of mind of his soldiers': but the reference is
specifically to their (lack of) good will; frag. 27 of
Unc. Ref. canina facundia, 'a barking kind of eloquence,'
(better, 'snarling'?), probably does not 'imply a resorting to
forensic oratory' but a specific kind of invective-filled,
tribunician delivery, cf. Vell. 64.3 with Woodman's n. and Quint.
12.9.9 with Austin's n.[[1]]
It would have been helpful to have reprinted from Vol. I the
relevant parts of Section 8, 'About this edition,' along with the
rest of the Introduction; as it is, there appears to be nowhere
in Vol. II where the asterisks in front of selected fragments are
explained (they are frags. transmitted without book number). Even
more helpful would have been a map, esp. for some of the detailed
reconstructions of the marches around the Black Sea.
This review has concentrated on ways in which I would have
treated these fragments differently. In conclusion, however, I
want to return to my beginning and say again that although not
everyone will find everything to their taste in this book, it is
an indispensable tool for Sallustians and ancient
historiographers alike. M. has made available for the first time
one of the critical documents in ancient history, and thoroughly
explicated its historical content. Much remains to be done, but
we can thank M. for giving us such a careful and
thought-provoking start.
NOTES
1 There are a few minor typographical errors, some of them
confusing: p.12, line 19, for 'book 4' read 'book 3'; p.31, line
9, for 'now' read 'not'; p. 42, line 12, for '(3.105)' read
'(3.103)'; also on p.42, the frag. numbers have gotten out of
line with the frags., from 3.103 through 24 each should be
shifted down one frag.; p.64, line 7 up, for 'Publiocola' read
'Publicola'; p.109, line 7, accents are missing; p.122, line 9,
for 'on' read 'of'; p.188, last line(s) is/are missing; p.204,
line 14 up, for 'Lucullus' read 'Lucullus''; p.207, line 8 up,
for 'effusa' read 'effusas'; p.217, line 13 up, for
'22' read '122'; p.223, note on frag. 21, add that this is frag.
3.55M; p.223, line 7 up, for '(3.16M)' read '(3.61M)'; p.225,
line 13, for '(5.54M)' read '(4.54M)'; p.226, line 18 up, for
'(4.80)' read '(4.80M)'; p.227, line 13 up, for '(5.26)' read
'(5.26M)'; p.228, line 12 up, for 'regio' read
'regione'; p.234, line 16, for 'the' the text has 'a.'