« IndietroContinua »
EDITED BY DRS. SCHMITZ AND ZUMPT.
C. SALLUSTII CRISPI
DE BELLO CATILINARIO
LEA & BLANCHARD.
THE text of Sallust, notwithstanding the many and excellent editions which have been published, has not yet acquired a form that can be regarded as generally adopted and established; for the number of manuscripts is great, and their differences have led critical editors to form different opinions as to which, in each case, is the correct reading, or at least the one most worthy of acceptation. This difference of opinion manifested itself especially after the edition of Gottleib Corte (Leipzig, 1724, 4to.), who in many passages abandoned the vulgate as constituted by Gruter and Wasse, and on the authority of a few manuscripts, altered the text of Sallust, on the mere supposition that his style was abrupt. Corte's recension was adopted by many, and often reprinted; while others, especially Haverkamp, in his valuable and very complete edition (Hague, 1742, 2 vols. 4to.), returned to the vulgate. The latest critical editors of Sallust-Gerlach (Basel, 1823, &c. 3 vols. 4to., and a revised text, Basel, 1832, 8vo.) and Kritz (Leipzig, 1828, &c. 2 vols. 8vo.)—though declaring against the arbitrary proceedings of Corte, yet very often differ in their texts from each other. Between these two stands the edition of the learned critic, J. C. Orelli (Zürich, 1840), whose text forms the basis of the present edition. But besides abandoning his artificial and antiquated orthography, and restoring that which is adopted in most editions of Latin classics, we have felt obliged in many instances to give up Orelli's reading, and to follow the authority of the best manuscripts, especially the Codex Leidensis (marked L in Haverkamp's edition). For our explanatory notes we are much indebted to the edition of Kritz, though we have often been under the necessity of differing from him.
BERLIN, May, 1848.
C. G. ZUMPT.
CAIUS SALLUSTIUS CRISPUS, according to the statement of the ancient chronologer Hieronymus, was born in B. c. 86, at Amiternum, in the country of the Sabines (to the north-east of Rome), and died four years before the battle of Actium—that is, in B. c. 34 or 35. After having no doubt gone through a complete course of law and the art of oratory, he devoted himself to the service of the Roman republic at a time when Rome was internally divided by the struggle of the opposite factions of the optimates, or the aristocracy, and the populares, or the democratical party. The optimates supported the power of the senate, and of the nobility who prevailed in the senate; while the populares were exerting themselves to bring all public questions of importance before the popular assembly for decision, and resisted the influence of illustrious and powerful families, whose privileges, arising from birth and wealth, they attempted to destroy. Sallust belonged to the latter of these parties. In B. c. 52 he was tribune of the people, and took an active part in the disturbances which were caused at Rome in that year by the open struggles between Annius Milo, one of the optimates, who was canvassing for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was trying to obtain the praetorship. Milo slew Clodius on a public road: he was accused by the populares, and defended by the optimates; but the judges, who could not allow such an act of open violence to escape unpunished, condemned, and sentenced him to exile. Pompey alone, who was then consul for the third time, was capable of restoring order and tranquillity. The position of a tribune of the people was a difficult one for Sallust: he was to some extent opposed to Milo, and consequently also to Cicero, who pleaded for Milo; but there exists a statement that he gave up his opposition; and he himself, in the introduction to his 'Catiline,' intimates that his honest endeavours for the good of the state drew upon him only ill-will