Sallust's pessimism about Rome's rise to power

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

While reading Sallust's Bellum Catilinae I came across a section of the book (Chapt.8 thru 10) which comes across to me that Sallust is obviously proud of what Rome has achieved but at the same time he is dissapointed with what Rome is becoming, basically in not so many words he blames the destruction of Carthage and the capture of Greece for the start of the deterioration, because the one removed an enemy that had kept Rome on her toes, whilst the other familiarized Rome with the enervating luxuries and vices of the Greek world.

 

But beyond question Fortune holds sway everywhere. It is she that makes all events famous or obscure according to her caprice rather than in accordance with the truth. The acts of the Athenians, in my judgment, were indeed great and glorious enough, but nevertheless somewhat less important than fame represents them. But because Athens produced writers of exceptional talent, the exploits of the men of Athens are heralded throughout the world as unsurpassed. Thus the merit of those who did the deeds is rated as high as brilliant minds have been able to exalt the deeds themselves by words of praise. But the Roman people never had that advantage, since their ablest men were always most engaged with affairs; their minds were never employed apart from their bodies; the best citizen preferred action to words, and thought that his own brave deeds should be lauded by others rather than that theirs should be recounted by him.

 

Accordingly, good morals were cultivated at home and in the field; there was the greatest harmony and little or no avarice; justice and probity prevailed among them, thanks not so much to laws as to nature. Quarrels, discord, and strife were reserved for their enemies; citizen vied with citizen only for the prize of merit. They were lavish in their offerings to the gods, frugal in the home, loyal to their friends. By practising these two qualities, boldness in warfare and justice when peace came, they watched over themselves and their country. In proof of these statements I present this convincing evidence: firstly, in time of war punishment was more often inflicted for attacking the enemy contrary to orders, or for withdrawing too tardily when recalled from the field, than for venturing to abandon the standards or to give ground under stress; and secondly, in time of peace they ruled by kindness rather than fear, and when wronged preferred forgiveness to vengeance.

 

But when our country had grown great through toil and the practice of justice, when great kings had been vanquished in war, savage tribes and mighty peoples subdued by force of arms, when Carthage, the rival of Rome's sway, had perished root and branch, and all seas and lands were open, then Fortune began to grow cruel and to bring confusion into all our affairs. Those who had found it easy to bear hardship and dangers, anxiety and adversity, found leisure and wealth, desirable under other circumstances, a burden and a curse. Hence the lust for money first, then for power, grew upon them; these were, I may say, the root of all evils. For avarice destroyed honour, integrity, and all other noble qualities; taught in their place insolence, cruelty, to neglect the gods, to set a price on everything. Ambition drove many men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue; to value friendships and enmities not on their merits but by the standard of self-interest, and to show a good front rather than a good heart. At first these vices grew slowly, from time to time they were punished; finally, when the disease had spread like a deadly plague, the state was changed and a government second to none in equity and excellence became cruel and intolerable.

 

What do you think?

Edited August 10, 2009 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Centurion-Macro]

I suppose he had a point. Once Rome had defeated her enemies a lot of Senators and others started to lie and betray other senators for power and such. When fighting Carthage all things bad could be blamed on them, and so the Romans never fought each other. But when they had no large enmies left they started to fight themselves.

[sylla]

Embarrassing his contemporaries by their comparison with an idealized vision of their elders was hardly an original idea from Sallust, either on a Roman or a global scale; just ask Jeremiah, Confucius or Cato Censorius.

A lazy lifestyle was then Sallust

Edited August 11, 2009 by sylla

[marcus silanus]

The gratitude of the Dictator was evident; he was appointed as the first proconsul of Numidia (46-44 BC), where he became filthy rich even by his peers’ standards, as attested by his extant Gardens; he may have escaped trial after his return just through Caesar's intervention.

Then, his thesis included fair doses of personal hypocrisy, which would only have made it all more difficult to be swallowed by later historians like Livy and Dio, even acknowledging his qualities as a historian and rhetorician.

 

If I may be allowed to digress from the work in question and refer to his speech to Caesar on the state, the suggestion of his personal hypocrisy becomes manifest. He exhorts the simple life of living within one's means, banning usury and fixing incomes to meet need.

 

He doesn't seem to be suggesting that he would be subject to such restrictions and Caesar, upon whom he layers flattery, had been hugely willing to risk other people's vast sums of money, before the Gallic campaign had paid off.

[cornelius_sulla]

GPM, I'm just impressed that you read that boring load of sh*te! Sallust was a blowhard. Let's all keep that in mind.

[sylla]

GPM, I'm just impressed that you read that boring load of sh*te! Sallust was a blowhard. Let's all keep that in mind.

The amusing nature of any work is obviously subjective, but that load of sh*te was indeed great history; Sallust might have been a rascal and a blowhard, but there's a priory no reason why any rascal (and blowhard) couldn't also have been a gifted historian.

In fact, we are not short of prominent examples among our regular Classical sources.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

GPM, I'm just impressed that you read that boring load of sh*te! Sallust was a blowhard. Let's all keep that in mind.

 

Haha Sulla, I'm just impressed that I managed to impress you!!!

 

Yes OK maybe Sallust was a bit of a "blowhard" but let's not forget that this is as near to first hand evidence as we're going to get, This load of shite was written by a Roman who lived and breathed in the times we all love learning about so in my opinion for that reason alone it certainly warrants reading. Whether or not we like it or believe it is another matter.

[Neoflash]

Here's an interesting observation: Sallust's discourse is almost identical to some well known biblical texts.

 

Compare Sallust's "Hence the lust for money first, then for power, grew upon them; these were, I may say, the root of all evils" to 1 Timothy 6:10's "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

 

Also, compare Sallust's thoughts on the deterioration of roman society and moral to the description 2 Timorthy 3:1-8 gives of society's deterioration in the "last days".

 

Sallust: "Those who had found it easy to bear hardship and dangers, anxiety and adversity, found leisure and wealth, desirable under other circumstances, a burden and a curse. Hence the lust for money first, then for power, grew upon them; these were, I may say, the root of all evils. For avarice destroyed honour, integrity, and all other noble qualities; taught in their place insolence, cruelty, to neglect the gods, to set a price on everything. Ambition drove many men to become false; to have one thought locked in the breast, another ready on the tongue; to value friendships and enmities not on their merits but by the standard of self-interest, and to show a good front rather than a good heart. At first these vices grew slowly, from time to time they were punished; finally, when the disease had spread like a deadly plague, the state was changed and a government second to none in equity and excellence became cruel and intolerable."

 

Bible: "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2

[sylla]

There's no mystery in the formula for popularity among proletarians, from Buddha to Marx; just blame the evil money.

 

Again, embarrassing his contemporaries by their comparison with an idealized vision of their elders was hardly an original idea from Sallust (neither from any biblical author, BTW).

Edited September 8, 2009 by sylla

[marcus silanus]

There's no mystery in the formula for popularity among proletarians, from Buddha to Marx; just blame the evil money.

 

Again, embarrassing his contemporaries by their comparison with an idealized vision of their elders was hardly an original idea from Sallust (neither from any biblical author, BTW).

 

Absolutely and this also demonstrates the unoriginality of many 'biblical' ethics. There are many core Christian beliefs to be found in Plato to name but one.

[consulscipio236]

There is a tendency to dismiss Sallust as a sort of proto-Marxist, but I actually think he is worth listening to. Yes he was pro-Caesarian and biased, but then all ancient sources are biased to some degree. As he lived during the times he writes about, he gives us a good understanding of the mood of the day. It is no secret that money played a major role in the ruin of the republic. From the overthrow of the yeoman farmer class after the 2nd Punic War to the rise of an economy based on plunder and slave labor, all the way to the corrupt senatorial aristocracy that fought the Grachhi, Marius, and would not stop until they were defeated by Caesar. A great pessimism overtook society that these events were happening, and Sallust is a window into that. This attitude can be seen by later historians, who write about (probably legendary) Romans like Cinncinatus, famous to all for his humility.

[sylla]

There is a tendency to dismiss Sallust as a sort of proto-Marxist, ...

Hardly could such image be any more misleading on either Sallust or Marxism.

Yes he was pro-Caesarian and biased, but then all ancient sources are biased to some degree. As he lived during the times he writes about, he gives us a good understanding of the mood of the day.

Sallust was one of the most influential historians ever, but as most (if not all) historians, he had his owm agenda; as you noted, his good understanding of the mood of the day was openly biased in favor of the autocracy that overcame the Republic.

It is no secret that money played a major role in the ruin of the republic. From the overthrow of the yeoman farmer class after the 2nd Punic War to the rise of an economy based on plunder and slave labor ...

Actually, the vision of the purported farmer class pauperization has considerably changed in recent years; for one, the high demand of that same slave labor seems to be in obvious contradiction with such thesis. In any case, the Republic was destroyed by the professional army, not by the yeomen.

... all the way to the corrupt senatorial aristocracy that fought the Grachhi, Marius, and would not stop until they were defeated by Caesar. A great pessimism overtook society that these events were happening, and Sallust is a window into that. This attitude can be seen by later historians, who write about (probably legendary) Romans like Cinncinatus, famous to all for his humility.

Caesar, the Gracchi and even the novus homo Marius were evidently notable members of that same corrupt senatorial aristocracy, the same as their respective most prominent allies. Strictly speaking, all of them fought within the aristocracy; their common goal was clearly the control of such aristocracy, not its destruction; even Augustus was in the same case. Edited December 2, 2009 by sylla

[consulscipio236]

Caesar, the Gracchi and even the novus homo Marius were evidently notable members of that same corrupt senatorial aristocracy, the same as their respective most prominent allies. Strictly speaking, all of them fought within the aristocracy; their common goal was clearly the control of such aristocracy, not its destruction; even Augustus was in the same case.

 

Tiberius Gracchus was not his father's politician. He inherited a place in the aristocracy but never truly was a part of it. The same could be said of Catiline or even Clodius. Marius was definately not part of the aristocracy, although he did bend it to his will. You are correct, however, that control of the aristocracy (not its destruction) was the actual goal of the civil wars. This game, of course, was ultimately won by Augustus. However, this fight typicaly took the form of a fight against the aristocracy and on behalf of the common people. The support of the common people was the key to controlling the aristocracy, so long as this control was done in the form of an overthrow. The plebs were always the tool of power, however, and so the aristocracy's corrupt form became the means of its transformation and the end of the republic.