Sallustius, in his celebrated abstract of the Punic records of Thempsal,
makes the following remark:
"Nam de Carthagine silere melius puto, quam parum dicere, _quoniam alio
properare tempus monet_."--_De Bello Jugurthino_, c. xix. ed. Allen.
Does not this sound as if the history has been read out to an assembly?
There is strong presumptive evidence in favour of such a supposition, in
the tradition of Herodotus having read aloud his history at the Grecian
Games. Besides, it was a common practice of Cicero and Plinius the Younger
to read out their orations and treatises. I cannot help thinking that the
histories of Sallustius were first delivered as lectures, _taken down by
reporters_[2] employed by himself for the purposes of preserving his words,
as he had only notes before him, fairly transcribed from the stenographic
character, and then, _but not till then_, made a subject of closet-study.
This, I think, is easy of proof, and instances may be adduced (the
expression I have quoted is one) where the lecturer peeps out.
The interpolated state in which this classic has come down to us is indeed
sad: there is scarcely a chapter throughout the Catiline and Jugurtha where
some transcriber has not been at work, sticking in words and sometimes
whole sentences, which, I am astonished to see, have escaped the notice of
Cortius, Allen, and the older editors.
I said above that Sallustius made his lectures or orations on the history
of his country a subject of closet study. He did so, and in an eminent
degree. His conciseness, clearness (when relieved from the burden of
interpolation), and usual impartiality, point to a careful and spiritual
study of Thucydides; but he could not attain to an equal degree of
sweetness as the Greek historian, on account of the general character of
their several languages differing. As far, however, as Roman could approach
to Greek, I conceive Sallustius has approached to Thucydides. Tacitus
(whose mind was impregnated with, and steeped in Sallustius) rarely
enounces a sentiment in his numerous works the origin of which is not
referable to the latter author. It requires some careful thought sometimes,
before the passages can be traced; but they _are_ traceable; and if we had
the whole works of Sallustius, I doubt not but that we should be able to
trace them all much more easily. Perhaps--I say it without stress, mind; it
is a mere suggestion--it would be possible to restore, or rather connect
some of the historical fragments of Sallustius by means of the works of
Tacitus. When we find a sentiment of Sallustius half expressed in the
fragment, and trending towards the conclusion arrived at by Tacitus, may we
not, as we know how completely the latter had imbibed the thoughts of the
former, reasonably suppose the remainder of the passage to be parallel;
and, following out the idea, restore it, taking into consideration the
difference of the mode of expression in the two eras? And this may hold
good, not only between Tacitus and Sallustius, but between Sallustius and
Thucydides.
Such is the aspect under which I endeavour to behold the classics, viz. as
one great whole, having here and there pieces gone or faded (lost or
hopelessly corrupted), and which fit into each other, showing the building
which intellect erects, the only building calculated to withstand the hand
of time. Thanks be to printing, to cheap literature, and to English energy
and investigation, antiquity may again rear her head, and fell that it is
comprehended in all its varied bearings, and lights and shadows.
To men like Niebuhr, Grote, Layard, Prescott, St. John, Wilkinson,
Rawlinson, and Norris, do we owe a debt of gratitude, for such patience and
investigation; and no one cheers them on with a more sincere feeling, and
thanks them for their past exertions, than