them; the fair conclusion from which is, that Sallust's ejection was a party proceeding, whatever truth there may have been in the charge of his living a scandalous life.

The unknown author of the miserable Declamation against Sallust hints that Sallust after his ejection went to Caesar. In the early part of B.C. 50, Caesar was in North Italy; he spent the summer of that year in Transalpine Gallia, and returned to North Italy again at the close of the year. Sallust may have gone to Caesar and he may not, for there is no evidence about it. In the next year, B.C. 49, in January, Caesar crossed the river Rubicon, and Sallust may have joined him; but he was a man of so little mark that we find nothing about him until B.C. 48, when he had the command of a legion in Illyricum or the parts thereabouts, as Orosius tells us, or something to that effect, in a very confused way.

In B.C. 47 Sallust was praetor designatus, and thus he would be restored to his rank in the Senate, though it is likely enough that he was restored before by Caesar, but without the clumsy expedient of being elected quaestor a second time, as the author of the Declamation against Sallust affirms. Dion Cassius says that Sallust obtained his readmission to the Senate by being elected a praetor.

In September B.C. 47 Caesar returned from the Alexandrine war and immediately made preparations for the war in Africa, where King Juba, Scipio, and M. Cato had got together a large force. Some of Caesar's soldiers were mutinous and refused to go into Africa, claiming the fulfilment of the promises which Caesar had made them after the battle of Pharsalia, and release from service. Caesar sent Sallust to the mutineers, into Campania, as Dion Cassius says, but the praetor's eloquence did not pacify

the men, and he was compelled to fly for his life. Notwithstanding Sallust's want of success in this mission, Caesar commissioned him to take over some of the legions into Sicily for the African war, as some writers infer from a letter of Cicero to Atticus; but the letter certainly does not prove that Sallust did take the legions to Sicily. However, Sallust was in the African war, and Caesar sent him with some ships to the island Cercina, now the Karkenna islands off the coast of Tunis, to seize the stores of corn there. The quaestorius C. Decimius, who was placed in Cercina to take care of the corn, fled in a small vessel. Sallust was received by the islanders, and sent off a large quantity of corn to Caesar's camp. When the African war was ended by the defeat of Juba and Scipio early in B.C. 46, Caesar made Juba's kingdom of Numidia into a Roman province and left Sallust as governor with the title of Proconsul. Sallust remained in Africa during the year B.C. 46. In B.C. 45 he returned to Rome a rich man.

Sallust spent the rest of his life in retirement. He built a magnificent house and made a beautiful garden at Rome, in the valley which separates the Quirinal from the Pincius or Collis Hortulorum. This part of Rome was beyond the wall of Servius, and extended to the Porta Salaria, which was on the north-east side of Rome. The old Roman topographers affirm that the spot was named Salustricum or Salustium to their day. Near the elevation on which the Church of Sta Susanna stands was the Forum Sallustii. The Horti Sallustiani afterwards became imperial property, and were occupied by Nero, Vespasian, and Aurelian. The Emperor Nerva died here. Many valuable works of art have been found by excavating within the limits of Sallust's estate, and some of them may have belonged to the historian.

There is a story in Hieronymus that Sallust married. Terentia, the divorced wife of M. Cicero. Terentia was put away by her husband in B.C. 46. She was then fifty at least, and Sallust was forty. Kritz says that it was so unequal a match that we can scarce believe it, unless Sallust had some peculiar reasons for marrying Terentia. But he may have had such reasons satisfactory to himself, if not to Kritz, and such marriages are not unknown in our times. We do not know if Sallust had any wife, unless it was Terentia, and he left no children, and so far the story of his marriage is consistent, for Terentia was past the usual age of child-bearing. But Terentia, it is said by the same writer who is the authority for her marriage with Sallust, married Messala Corvinus after Sallust's death. She reached the age of one hundred and three, and so had time enough to have three husbands or even more. However, there is no authority for the marriage with Sallust except that of Hieronymus, but he must have found this story somewhere.

Nothing is known of Sallust's life after Caesar's death, or how he managed to live quietly in those troublesome times. He amused himself with writing history, having retired from public life and having no taste, as he says, for agriculture or field sports, of both of which he speaks with contempt (Cat. c. 4). He died in B.c. 35, in his fifty-first year, and four years before the battle of Actium. His property went to his sister's grandson, whom he had adopted. This youth bore the historian's name, and was a man of some influence under Augustus and Tiberius. He died A.D. 20.

The little that we know of Sallust is almost a proof that he never attained any distinction as a public man, that he was neither an orator nor a soldier, that he had neither eloquence nor military talent, the two arts which

raised a man at Rome.

Several of the later Roman

writers give him a bad character, and affirm that his preaching and his practice did not agree. It is conjectured, and with much probability, that the writings of Pompeius Laenas were the foundation of this bad name, in part at least. Laenas was a freedman of Pompeius Magnus, and accompanied him in most of his expeditions. After the death of Magnus and his sons, Laenas kept a school in the Carinae, near the temple of Tellus. His affection to his old master, says Suetonius, made him write invectives against Sallust, for Sallust had written in his Histories something unfavourable about Pompeius. Sallust was of Caesar's faction, and Laenas was on the other side, and so we may expect that Laenas would abuse Sallust, even if Sallust had not abused Laenas' patron.

There are, however, specific charges against Sallust. He is charged with committing adultery with Fausta, Sulla's daughter, and Milo's wife. Adultery was not

unusual at Rome, and such a breach of good morals might have passed unnoticed, if the woman and the husband had not been distinguished personages. It is said, and the learned M. Varro is the authority for it, that Milo caught Sallust in his adultery, gave him a good cowhiding, and let him go for a sum of money. The hiding was a very proper punishment; and the money may be viewed as damages, such as in our system a husband may get by legal proceedings against the adulterer. Milo took the short and Roman way of getting payment for the wrong, and Milo was in debt and wanted money.

Kritz admits that Varro was an honest man; but as he was not only a learned man but also a Pompeian, he thinks it is not incredible that he could not refrain from inflicting this stigma on a man of the opposite faction and a man

whom he did not like, following only vague city scandal. This is the first time that I ever heard of a man's learning being a reason for his believing an idle rumour. The conclusion of Kritz involves the assumption that a learned man has no sense and also no honesty. There could not be more precise and positive testimony than that of Varro. Kritz says that this scandalous story could only have been known from Sallust who was whipped and paid the money, or from Milo who received the money, for nobody will say that the affair took place in the presence of witnesses. If this learned critic knew more of what goes on in the world, he would not believe that a man of rank could be well flogged by an injured husband without the story being known, even if both the adulterer and the husband and wife said nothing about it. How does he suppose that Sallust could get out of Milo's house, or out of any house after such treatment without all the slaves knowing it, and others too? As to the confirmation of Varro's story from Horace and his Scholiast's note, it is not of much value, perhaps it has no value at all; but another passage in Horace shows that Fausta was believed to be a loose woman, and that one Villius, who was her lover, was also caught and beaten by Milo, but there was no money paid on that occasion.

The date of Sallust's unlucky adventure is not fixed, but we must infer that it was before Milo killed Clodius in January, B.C. 52. Sallust, as it has been already said, showed his hostility to Milo on this occasion, but there is no evidence of his being reconciled to Milo before Milo's trial, as Kritz affirms that Asconius says. Asconius only says that Sallust was suspected of having come to terms with Milo; a mere popular rumour, which however as being merely a rumour, I suppose, that a learned man ought to believe, as Varro believed another popular