rash associates, or followed so desperate an adventurer. But the chief objection urged against his impartiality, is the feeble and apparently reluctant commendation he bestows on Cicero, who is now acknowledged to have been the principal actor in detecting and frustrating the conspiracy. Though fond of displaying his talents in drawing characters, he exercises none of it on Cicero, whom he merely terms "homo egregius et optumus consul," which was but cold applause for one who had saved the commonwealth. It is true, that, in the early part of the history, praise, though sparingly bestowed, is not absolutely withheld. The election of Cicero to the consulship is fairly attributed to the high opinion entertained of his talents and capacity, which overcame the disadvantages of obscure birth. The mode adopted of gaining over one of the accomplices, and for fixing his own wavering and disaffected colleague, the dexterity manifested in seizing the Allobrogian deputies with the letters, and the irresistible effect produced by confronting them with the conspirators, are attributed exclusively to Cicero. It is in the conclusion of the business that the historian withholds from him his due share of applause, and contrives to eclipse him by always interposing the character of Cato, though it could not be unknown to any witness of those transactions that Cato himself and other senators publicly hailed the consul as the Father of his country; and that a public thanksgiving to the gods was decreed in his name, for having preserved the city from conflagration, and the citizens from massacre. This omission, which may have originated partly in enmity, and partly in disgust at the ill-disguised vanity of the consul, has in all times been regarded as the chief defect, and even stain, in the history of the Catilinarian conspiracy.

Although not an eye-witness of the war with Jugurtha, Sallust's situation as Prætor of Numidia, which suggested the composition, was favourable to the authority of the work, by affording opportunity of collecting materials, and procuring information. He examined into the different accounts, written as well as traditionary, concerning the history of Africa, particularly the documents preserved in the archives of King Hiempsal, which he caused to be translated for his own use, and which proved peculiarly serviceable in the detailed account which he has given of the inhabitants of Africa. In this history he has been accused of shewing an undue par

ca.

tiality towards the character of Marius; and of giving, for the sake of his favourite leader, an unfair account of the massacre at VacBut he appears to me to do even more than ample justice to Metellus, as he represents the war as almost finished by him previous to the arrival of Marius, though it was, in fact, far from being concluded.

Veracity and fidelity are the chief, and, indeed, the indispensable duties of an historian. Of all the ornaments of historic composition, it derives its chief embellishment from a graceful and perspicuous style. That of the earlier annalists was inelegant and jejune, but it came to be considered, in the progress of history, as a matter of primary importance. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that so much value was at length attached to it, since the ancient historians seldom gave their authorities, and considered the merit of history as consisting in fine writing more than in an accurate detail of facts. Sallust evidently regarded a fine style as one of the chief merits of an historical work. The style on which he took so much pains, was carefully formed on that of Thucydides, whose manner of writing was in a great measure original, and, till the time of Sallust, peculiar to himself. The Roman has wonderfully succeeded in imitating the vigour and conciseness of the Greek historian, and infusing into his composition something of that dignified austerity which distinguishes the works of his great model; but when I say that Sallust has imitated the conciseness of Thucydides, I mean the rapid and compressed manner in which his narrative is conducted; in short, brevity of idea rather than of language. For Thucydides, although he brings forward only the principal idea, and discards what is collateral, yet frequently employs long and involved periods. Sallust, on the other hand, is abrupt and sententious, and is generally considered as having carried this sort of brevity to a vicious excess. The use of copulatives, either for the purpose of connecting his sentences with each other, or uniting the clauses of the same sentence, is in a great measure rejected. This produces a monotonous effect, and a total want of that flow and variety which is the principal charm of the historic period. Seneca accordingly (Epist. 114.) talks of the "Amputatae sententiae, et verba ante expectatum cadentia," which the practice of Sallust had rendered fashionable. Lord Monboddo calls his style incoherent, and declares that there is not

one of his short and uniform sentences which deserves the name of a period; so that, supposing each sentence were in itself beautiful, there is not variety enough to constitute fine writing. It was, perhaps, partly in imitation of Thucydides, that Sallust introduced into his history a number of words almost considered as obsolete, and which were selected from the works of the older authors of Rome, particularly Cato the censor. It is on this point he has been chiefly attacked by Pollio, in his letters to Plancus. He has also been taxed with the opposite vice, of coining new words, and introducing Greek idioms; but the severity of judgment which led him to imitate the ancient and austere dignity of style, made him reject those sparkling ornaments of composition, which were beginning to infect the Roman taste, in consequence of the increasing popularity of the rhetorical schools of declamation, and the more frequent intercourse with Asia. On the whole, in the style of Sallust, there is too much appearance of study, and a want of that graceful ease, which is generally the effect of art, but in which art is no where discovered.

Of all the departments of history, the delineation of character is the most trying to the temper and impartiality of the writer, more especially where he has been contemporary with the individuals he pourtrays, and in some degree engaged in the transactions he records. Five or six of the characters drawn by Sallust have in all ages been regarded as master-pieces. He has seized the delicate shades, as well as the prominent features, and thrown over them the most lively and appropriate colouring. Those of the two principal actors in his tragic histories are forcibly given, and prepare us for the incidents which follow. The portrait drawn of Catiline conveys a lively notion of his mind and person,-his profligate and untameable spirit, his infinite resources, unwearied application and prevailing address. We behold, as it were, before us, the deadly paleness of his countenance, his ghastly eye, his unequal troubled step, and the distraction of his whole appearance, strongly indicating the restless horror of a guilty conscience. I think, however, it might have been instructive and interesting if we bad seen something more of the atrocities of the early life of this chief conspirator. The notice also of the other conspirators is too brief, and there is too little discrimination of their characters. The parallel drawn between Cato and Cæsar is one of the

most celebrated passages in the history of the conspiracy. Of both these famed opponents we are presented with favourable likenesses. Their defects are thrown into the shade; and the bright qualities of each different species by which they were distinguished, are contrasted for the purpose of showing the various qualities by which men arrive at eminence.

The introductory sketch of the genius and manners of Jugurtha is no less able and spirited than the character of Catiline. The most singular part of his character was the mixture of boldness and irresolution which it combined; but the lesson we receive from it, lies in the miseries of suspicion and remorse which he had -created for himself by his atrocities, and which rendered him as wretched on the throne or at the head of his army, as in the dungeon in which he ended his existence. The portraits of the other principal characters who figured in the Jugurthine war, are also well brought out. That of Marius, in particular, is happily touched. His insatiable ambition is artfully disguised under the mask of pa triotism, his cupidity and avarice are concealed under that of martial simplicity and hardihood; but, though we know from his subsequent career the hypocrisy of his pretensions, the character of Marius is presented to us in a møre favourable light than that in which it can be viewed on a survey of his whole life. We see the blunt and gallant soldier, and not that savage whose innate cruelty of soul was first about to burst forth for the destruction of his countrymen. In drawing the portrait of Sylla, the memorable rival of Marius, the historian represents him also such as he appeared at that period, not such as he afterwards proved himself to be. We behold him with pleasure as an accomplished and subtle commander, eloquent in speech, and versatile in resources; but there is no trace of the cold-blooded assassin, the tyrant, buffoon, and usurp

er.

History, in its original state, was confined to narrative: the reader being left to form his own reflections on the deeds or events re corded. The historic art, however, conveys not complete satisfaction, unless these actions be connected with their causes,-the political springs, or private passions, in which they originated. It is the business, therefore, of the historian, to apply the conclusions of the politician in explaining the causes and effects of the transactions he relates. These transactions the author must receive from

₹

4

authentic monuments or records, but the remarks deduced from them must be the offspring of his own ingenuity. The reflections with which Sallust introduces his narrative, and those he draws from it, are so just and numerous, that he has by some been considered the father of philosophic history. It must always, however, be remembered, that the proper subject of history is the detail of national transactions,—that whatever forms not a part of the narrative is episodical, and therefore improper, if it be too long, and do not grow naturally out of the subject. Now, some of the political and moral digressions of Sallust are neither very immediately connected with his subject, nor very obviously suggested by the narration. The discursive nature and inordinate length of the introduction to his histories have been strongly objected to. The first four sections of Catiline's Conspiracy have indeed little relation to that topic. They might as well have been prefixed to any other history, and much better to a moral or philosophic treatise. In fact, a considerable part of them, descanting on the fleeting nature of wealth and beauty, and all such adventitious possessions, are borrowed from the second oration of Isocrates. Perhaps the eight following sections are also disproportioned to the length of the history; but the preliminary essay they contain on the degradation of Roman manners and decline of virtue, is not an unsuitable introduction to the conspiracy, as it was this corruption of morals which gave birth to it, and bestowed on it a chance of success. The preface to the Jugurthine War has much less relation to the subject which it is intended to introduce. The author discourses at large on his favourite topic, the superiority of mental endowments over corporeal advantages, and the beauty of virtue and genius. He contrasts a life of listless indolence with one of honourable activity; and, finally, descants on the task of the historian as a suitable exercise for the highest faculties of the mind.

Besides the Conspiracy of Catiline and the Jugurthine War, which have been preserved entire, and from which our estimate of the merits of Sallust must be chiefly formed, he was author of a civil and military history of the republic, in five books, entitled Historia rerum in Republica Romana Gestarum. This work was the mature fruit of the genius of Sallust, having been the last he composed, and is inscribed to Lucullus, the son of the celebrated commander of that name. It included, properly speaking, only a