christian_mcguire's review against another edition
4.0
Sallust was a Roman historian after the death of Caesar and before the creation of the Principate. He wrote a history of the Jugurthine War and a shorter history of the Catiline Conspiracy. He also wrote a long history which is fragmentary and not included in this edition.
Firstly, Handford's translation is absolutely superb. The feeling of Sallust's prose is maintained while also being highly enjoyable to read for casuals. His notes are fantastic, and his introductions are just as good as the main courses. As for Sallust himself, he was a great writer, with jagged, angular and concise prose, similar to Tacitus. His writing isn't very smooth but is direct and to the point with lots of syncopation. Although less elegant than Livy, Sallust is far better at holding the reader's attention and being entertaining, and also is far less dry, so he is clearly a great writer. Sallust's overall approach to history is not just to relay the events, but also to moralize, and to tell a great story. The wars of Jugurtha and Cataline were his topics because they are simply fun and interesting episodes to learn, with deep themes that can be (and are) explored. For example, how corrupt, and corruptible, is the Roman Senate? Why do people already in positions of power start civil wars to get more power? Is ambition good? Is Rome's political class morally bankrupt and selfish, and if so, do they even realize it? Why are conservatives? "What went on in these people's heads?" is the main idea that should be explored when reading Sallust.
In addition to being a damn good writer and moralizer, he also knew how to do storytelling well. Both parts of this book have all the makings of good stories: excellent pacing and structuring, deep, memorable characters (which of course are real people), twists, tension and release, intriguing introductions and satisfying and sobering endings. The back of this book pitches it as "a masterpiece of dramatic narrative" and I couldn't agree more. Also, Sallust does have refreshing self awareness, occasionally having brief and helpful digressions which he humorously wraps up before getting too sidetracked. The downsides are that Sallust occasionally fumbles the timeline of events (which footnotes clarify), that there are a few moments where the writing gets dry, mainly in The Conspiracy of Cataline, and the oratory sections (where Sallust inserts entire speeches that characters give) are often boring. Those are occasional, so the vast majority of this book is thoroughly enjoyable. Overall, this is a highly enjoyable, thought-provoking and fascinating book that charts the Roman republic as it's cracks are beginning to appear, and the people who made it happen. 9/10.
Firstly, Handford's translation is absolutely superb. The feeling of Sallust's prose is maintained while also being highly enjoyable to read for casuals. His notes are fantastic, and his introductions are just as good as the main courses. As for Sallust himself, he was a great writer, with jagged, angular and concise prose, similar to Tacitus. His writing isn't very smooth but is direct and to the point with lots of syncopation. Although less elegant than Livy, Sallust is far better at holding the reader's attention and being entertaining, and also is far less dry, so he is clearly a great writer. Sallust's overall approach to history is not just to relay the events, but also to moralize, and to tell a great story. The wars of Jugurtha and Cataline were his topics because they are simply fun and interesting episodes to learn, with deep themes that can be (and are) explored. For example, how corrupt, and corruptible, is the Roman Senate? Why do people already in positions of power start civil wars to get more power? Is ambition good? Is Rome's political class morally bankrupt and selfish, and if so, do they even realize it? Why are conservatives? "What went on in these people's heads?" is the main idea that should be explored when reading Sallust.
In addition to being a damn good writer and moralizer, he also knew how to do storytelling well. Both parts of this book have all the makings of good stories: excellent pacing and structuring, deep, memorable characters (which of course are real people), twists, tension and release, intriguing introductions and satisfying and sobering endings. The back of this book pitches it as "a masterpiece of dramatic narrative" and I couldn't agree more. Also, Sallust does have refreshing self awareness, occasionally having brief and helpful digressions which he humorously wraps up before getting too sidetracked. The downsides are that Sallust occasionally fumbles the timeline of events (which footnotes clarify), that there are a few moments where the writing gets dry, mainly in The Conspiracy of Cataline, and the oratory sections (where Sallust inserts entire speeches that characters give) are often boring. Those are occasional, so the vast majority of this book is thoroughly enjoyable. Overall, this is a highly enjoyable, thought-provoking and fascinating book that charts the Roman republic as it's cracks are beginning to appear, and the people who made it happen. 9/10.
declann's review against another edition
The introduction was better than the actual bookÂ
ulrikemaria's review against another edition
4.0
hell yeah!!!!!!!!!
i didnt read the jugurthine war bit ( i may later,,) but woohoo the catiline bit was a good time!!! a fun snappy read...
sallust's prose (although translated ofc) was engaging and fairly straightforward and quite easy to read. i retained a lot more from it than i did the incredibly dense introduction.
this has piqued my interest a lot and i am very excited to read more about catiline!!!!!
i didnt read the jugurthine war bit ( i may later,,) but woohoo the catiline bit was a good time!!! a fun snappy read...
sallust's prose (although translated ofc) was engaging and fairly straightforward and quite easy to read. i retained a lot more from it than i did the incredibly dense introduction.
this has piqued my interest a lot and i am very excited to read more about catiline!!!!!
guojing's review against another edition
4.0
Fascinating and timeless. Many of Sallust's imprecations against Rome and the Romans could just as easily be made today against Washington and the American politicians. The greed and corruption which seemed to be the very purpose of high office in Rome is comparable to that of America, with its unending line of lobbyists and election contributions.
The first history - that on the Jugurthine War - was preferable, with better narrative style, more information given, and a more clear portrait of the state of affairs; The Conspiracy of Catiline seemed rushed, mildly discursive, though more too the point. Both painted an intriguing picture of the Rome just before the ultimate fall of the Republic, giving insight into why this tragic downfall happened.
The first history - that on the Jugurthine War - was preferable, with better narrative style, more information given, and a more clear portrait of the state of affairs; The Conspiracy of Catiline seemed rushed, mildly discursive, though more too the point. Both painted an intriguing picture of the Rome just before the ultimate fall of the Republic, giving insight into why this tragic downfall happened.
jgkeely's review against another edition
3.0
Sallust had a long political career, siding with the populists, who would eventually become the triumvirate of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey. In many ways, Sallust's history resembles Caesar's memoirs twenty years later, but Caesar's biases are much more difficult to ferret out. If Sallust had been a more clever man, we might have taken his word for it and entered his works as pure history, but his bias is so evident that we can almost fill out the rest of the story by it's absence.
There are fairly self-evident motivations for the men Sallust presents as incorrigible villains, and we may also compare his view of history to Cicero's; for even though they were of like opinion, Cicero tends to be more equitable in his explanations.
This difference between the two authors rather perfectly encapsulates the difference between them as men, and the central point of their disagreement. Cicero was a pacifier, a placator, but one of enough skill and vigor to change his opponent's course in the midst of deference. We might expect him to be in perfect agreement with Ben Franklin who, when once asked for advice by Thomas Jefferson, is supposed to have said "never disagree with anyone".
Sallust, on the other hand, was an incurable idealist. We are treated to long passages on the particular moral qualities a man ought to have and how Sallust's opponents lack them and how Sallust's friends all have them. There is a constant sense of injustice being perpetrated throughout the politic sphere, but it is always by Sallust's political and ideological enemies.
Though the reader rarely doubts such depravity and greed went on, Sallust's self righteous displays of humble innocence strike as false. His history is not informed enough to serve us--indeed, it is filled with errors in dates, places, and people. But neither is his rhetoric so impressive that it saves his tract from being more than the lamentations of a man who retired to complain for posterity's sake.
As a historical view, he is useful, but moreso within the context of other writers.
There are fairly self-evident motivations for the men Sallust presents as incorrigible villains, and we may also compare his view of history to Cicero's; for even though they were of like opinion, Cicero tends to be more equitable in his explanations.
This difference between the two authors rather perfectly encapsulates the difference between them as men, and the central point of their disagreement. Cicero was a pacifier, a placator, but one of enough skill and vigor to change his opponent's course in the midst of deference. We might expect him to be in perfect agreement with Ben Franklin who, when once asked for advice by Thomas Jefferson, is supposed to have said "never disagree with anyone".
Sallust, on the other hand, was an incurable idealist. We are treated to long passages on the particular moral qualities a man ought to have and how Sallust's opponents lack them and how Sallust's friends all have them. There is a constant sense of injustice being perpetrated throughout the politic sphere, but it is always by Sallust's political and ideological enemies.
Though the reader rarely doubts such depravity and greed went on, Sallust's self righteous displays of humble innocence strike as false. His history is not informed enough to serve us--indeed, it is filled with errors in dates, places, and people. But neither is his rhetoric so impressive that it saves his tract from being more than the lamentations of a man who retired to complain for posterity's sake.
As a historical view, he is useful, but moreso within the context of other writers.
More...