Views As Determining Moments and Characters

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

Date:______

I, ______, hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in:

It is entitled:

This work and its defense approved by:

Chair: ______

Geography and the Construction of Character in Sallust’s Jugurtha

John Ryan September 23, 2008 Degree(s) held: BA Greek and Latin, Ohio University Degree to be conferred: MA Classics Department of Classics McMicken College of Arts and Sciences

Committee Chair: William Johnson Abstract

Consistent with Sallust’s philosophy of history, the Jugurtha is an account of Rome’s war

with the Numidian prince, Jugurtha, in the end of the second century BC, which focuses on

morality and character as the primary force driving a nation’s history. Sallust accordingly uses

all sorts of techniques, such as the collapse chronology and selective attention to detail to bring

out what he views as determining moments and characters. Setting this monograph apart from

his earlier work, the Catiline, is Sallust’s seemingly new-found interest in describing geography

and how the people constituting the subject of his work interact with it. I would suggest that this

aspect of his work, as almost every other, exhibits in some cases a selection of detail and in

others a distortion of certain historical detail both aimed at constructing the character of the

various players at work in his narrative at both the national and individual levels.

My first chapter, therefore, will examine national character as it is constructed by

Sallust’s ethnographic discourse. Literary ethnographies were common in the ancient world, and

Posidonius, a famous polymath known especially for writing ethnographies, was active in

Sallust’s lifetime. Here I will invoke the Hippocratic treatise, Airs, Waters, Places, the earliest

surviving work in which the author explicitly relates the land’s formative influence on its

inhabitants. In this vein Sallust uses an ethnographic type—the nomad—to construct the

national character of the Numidians. Sallust then plays with the ethical implications found in

this ethnographic discourse in his construction of the individual’s character.

The second chapter will analyze the narrative itself and how Sallust uses the geography to

form the character of individuals. Here I will focus on Sallust’s development of Metellus and

iii

Marius as the two major Roman figures in this war. Sallust underlines his account of these two generals in this war by organizing their respective campaigns in a compositional ring. Here I will trace the marked ways in which each interacts with the physical geography of Africa. This will show pointed differences between the way Metellus, Marius, and Jugurtha interact with the land. These differences will progressively fade until Marius, in his last battle, takes the pose which Jugurtha had taken in Metellus’ first battle. I will also note in the second chapter deliberate uses of various common terms which Sallust employs in his prologue. These terms will become relevant to the discussion in the third chapter.

Concluding my examination, the third chapter will discuss the ways in which the devices revealed in the first two chapters might be read as a moralist’s account of this war. Close reading reveals that Sallust outlines a moral perspective in the prologues, which the narrative then illustrates. This observation has extensive ramifications by itself. My work here will be brief, however, as I will confine my discussion to the terms of geographic discourse.

Acknowledgments

The idea for this thesis had its earliest roots in an eight-page paper I wrote for undergraduate Latin class taught by William Owens at Ohio University. After putting down a very short, simplistic paper for about four years, I picked up the original idea once again as a graduate student under the guidance of Professor William Johnson, who directed this thesis.

Under his patient direction, without which I would have been unable to complete this thesis, a simple idea turned into a much more sophisticated piece of writing as I learned how to go about larger, more involved investigations. I would therefore like to thank Professor Johnson for his direction in how to go about writing the thesis and his helpful correction whenever I found myself lost or astray at any point of the process. Any point well made in what follows will be largely due to the tremendous amount of energy on his part. I would also like to thank Professor

Harry Gotoff, who revised the thesis as well and brought up helpful points for future consideration during its defense. I am grateful to both professors, more broadly, for their instruction during my time here, which has and will continue to refine my sense of Latin and

Greek language and literature as well as classics more broadly.

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 1

Ethnographic Tradition...... 7

The Rhetoric of Geography...... 31

The Prologue: Character and the Path to Virtue...... 68

vii

Introduction

The last historian of the Roman republic and the earliest Latin historian whose works still

survive, Sallust’s popularity among modern scholars is surprisingly little. Quintilian considered

him to be a historian superior to Livy.1 L.D. Reynolds has gone so far as to note that Sallust’s popularity among literary circles throughout antiquity rivaled that of Cicero once one takes into account the relative paucity of writing produced.2 Ronald Syme has warned us of the dangers of

simplistic views of Sallust and what he is doing; he is “at the same time an artist, a politician,

and a moralist.”3

Most attention afforded to Sallust has focused on his Catiline, the first of two

monographs.4 This is strange, however, since his second monograph, the Jugurtha, twice the

length, appears to be a much more developed piece of literature. Sallust’s Bellum Iugurthinum is

an account of Rome’s war with the Numidian prince Jugurtha which threatened to break out at the death of the Numidian king, Micipsa, in c. 118 and was not finally won by Rome until c. 107 in the consulship of Marius.5 Sallust’s highly structured account of this conflict begins with the

war in Numantia in 134 BC6 and continues up to Jugurtha’s moment of capture in 107.

1 Quint. 2.5.19. 2 Reynolds 1991, Praefatio v. 3 Syme 1964, 2. 4 Stewart 1968, 315 warns against this commonly used term, “monograph,” to refer to Sallust’s shorter histories. I use it nonetheless, however, for convenience’s sake. 5 Syme 1964, 138-140. 6 Paul 1984, 34.

The Bellum Iugurthinum begins, as does the Bellum Catilinae, with a moralistic prologue,

in which Sallust outlines a short, general philosophy for a successful life. After a short defense

of his decision to retire from public life to write history, Sallust gives his purpose:

Bellum scripturus sum quod populus Romanus cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum et atrox uariaque uictoria fuit, dehinc quia tunc primum superbiae nobilitatis obuiam itum est; quae contentio diuina et humana cuncta permiscuit eoque uecordiae processit ut studiis ciuilibus bellum atque uastitas Italiae finem faceret. (BI 5.1-2)

I am about to write about the war which the Roman people undertook with Jugurtha, king of the Numidians, first because it was great and fierce and with a treacherous victory, and then because that was the first time that the pride of the nobility was challenged; this conflict threw into confusion everything divine and human and reached such a degree of insanity that war amongst political parties and the destruction of Italy would mark its end.7

Sallust prefaces his narrative with some background information about the province of Numidia, that it was Rome’s gift to the African king, Masinissa, for his support and service in the second

Punic war. Micipsa takes the throne at Masinissa’s death, and raises, in addition to his own sons,

Adherbal and Hiempsal, his brother’s bastard, Jugurtha. When it quickly becomes apparent that

Jugurtha’s talent and character exceed that of Micipsa’s children, Micipsa sends him to aid the

Romans on the front line at Numantia in hopes that he will die in battle. There, Jugurtha

distinguishes himself, winning the endorsement of the Roman commander, Scipio. Critically, it

is at this point, according to Sallust, that Jugurtha is introduced to the ugly underbelly of politics at Rome as many flatterers begin to infect Jugurtha with thoughts of taking the Numidian throne

through bribery. It is here where Jugurtha first hears that poor advice, Romae omnia venalia

7 All translations are my own.

esse.8 Scipio warns Jugurtha of the dangers of listening to such talk, and then sends him home with a letter complimenting his conduct in the war. Micipsa eventually dies after attempting to ingratiate himself with Jugurtha by adopting him as his own son and charging him with the development of his own children and reminding him that nothing is more important than their loyalty to each other as brothers. The three argue, however, when dividing the kingdom, and this conflict brings about the murder of Hiempsal by Jugurtha. Quickly Jugurtha gains control over

all Numidia, in response to which Adherbal goes to Rome for help. Rome then divides the kingdom largely to Jugurtha’s favor, according to Sallust, as a result of Jugurtha’s efforts at bribing key members of the senate. At this point Sallust gives us his first digression.

Digressions in the Bellum Iugurthinum have been noted for their organizational function.9 The first digression is an ethnographic excursus on Africa and its inhabitants. Here

Sallust discusses the nature of the geography and vegetation of Africa as well as the origins and

organization of its inhabitants. In this context Sallust describes the land given to each king.

Once the Roman ambassadors leave, however, Jugurtha wages war on Adherbal once

again, and eventually kills him, despite Rome’s disapproval, in a massacre which claimed the

lives of Italian traders at Cirta.10 It is at this point that Rome must step in and take military action. Sallust weaves the account of the political scene at Rome tightly with his account of warfare in Africa. Rome does not make a good showing in the first phase of the war. While corruption reigns in Rome, a series of weak Roman commanders come to Africa who easily fall prey to Jugurtha’s superior military capability and succumb to his bribes. The situation in Africa looks bleak for Rome until Caecilius Metellus takes the helm.

8 BI 8.2 “(they said that) at Rome everything was for sale.” 9 Wiedemann 1993. 10 Morstein-Marx 2000 questions the degree to which this historical event was a massacre.

Following another digression—this one concerning C. Memius’ efforts to clean up the

corruption of the Roman nobles—Sallust narrates the first hopeful campaign in the war led by

Metellus. Metellus’ command marks the first time Jugurtha might be said to have met his match.

Despite a string of victorious encounters, however, Metellus remains unable to deal effectively

with Jugurtha’s guerilla tactics. Five battles are narrated in some detail in this phase, until

Metellus’ lieutenant takes the consulship.

The last digression deals with a local myth of the heroic deeds of two ancient

Carthaginian brothers. This digression introduces the final phase of the narrative during which

Gaius Marius, the new man, takes charge. Unlike his predecessors, Gaius Marius is not only a

capable military commander, but also able to deal effectively with Jugurtha. In fact, as I will

argue, he operates and functions in the same manner as Jugurtha, even giving Jugurtha trouble

which he himself had been able to give to the Roman commanders in the past. The monograph

abruptly ends when Marius’ lieutenant, Sulla, uses one of Jugurtha’s allies to lure him out in the

open for capture.

As stated above, Sallust weaves an account of the political scene at Rome with an account of the battleground in Africa. As we would expect from this author, Sallust overtly moralizes when discussing what takes place at Rome, but this study focuses on Sallust’s narrative in Numidia. More specifically, this study looks at rhetorical uses of the physical

geography of Africa through which, I claim, Sallust constructs character.

My first chapter, therefore, will examine national character as it is constructed by

Sallust’s ethnographic discourse. Literary ethnographies were common in the ancient world, and

Posidonius, a famous polymath known especially for writing ethnographies, was active in

Sallust’s lifetime. Here I will invoke the Hippocratic treatise, Airs, Waters, Places, the earliest surviving work in which the author explicitly relates the land’s formative influence on its inhabitants. In this vein Sallust uses an ethnographic type—the nomad—to construct the national character of the Numidians. Sallust then plays with the ethical implications found in this ethnographic discourse in his construction of the individual’s character.

The second chapter will analyze the narrative itself and how Sallust uses the geography to form the character of individuals. Here I will focus on Sallust’s development of Metellus and

Finally, let me say that this examination is by no means an attempt at an exhaustive

moralist reading of Sallust. Nor is it an exhaustive account of Sallust’s geographic discourse.11

I am interested specifically in moralistic use of geographic discourse, which is a different

question from those regarding Sallust’s ideals or his geographic sources. My reading does not

challenge any historical reading of Sallust, therefore, but examines the literary form which

Sallust’s account takes.

11 Keyser 1991 provides an almost exhaustive account of Sallust’s geographic sources and discourse. Keyser’s undertaking is different than mine, however, in that it is solely concerned with Sallust’s use of the science of geography. I will omit from my discussion Sallust’s Hellenistic geographic antecedents, as what we have is fragmentary and does not lend itself to the sort of analysis I am undertaking.

Ethnographic Tradition

Sallust’s African excursus crucially informs his account in the Jugurtha, and its

debt to Greek ethnography has long received attention.1 The ancient study of

ethnography centered around a theory wherein the land might formatively affect the

nature of the people inhabiting it. Ethnographic discourse, therefore, customarily included a discussion of the geography, its produce agricultural and otherwise, the origin

of its inhabitants, and systems of government, which might work against the effects of the

land on its people.2 Not only could a people’s physical characteristics be determined by the land, but its very moral fiber as well. The ethnographic tradition appears as early as the fifth century BC with Hecataeus of Miletus, who envisioned the world as a bronze disk encircled by Oceanus.3 He split the world into two parts, Europe and Asia, the latter

of which contained Africa. The earliest technical treatment of the ethnographic tradition

comes to us in the Hippocratic treatise, Airs, Waters, Places. More or less contemporary

with this treatise are the Histories of Herodotus. Two very different authors and purposes

can provide two different perspectives of this ancient outlook on the construction of

national character in fifth century Greece. While the Hippocratic author writes as a

physician explaining natural causes and treatments of disease, Herodotus writes as a

historian collecting local accounts and imposing reason on them. In the first half of his

treatise, Hippocrates—for I will refer to the author of the treatise thus4—sets forth a

system by which different types of waters and climates might produce different

1 Morstein-Marx 2001; Green 1993; Wiedemann 1993. 2 Thomas 1982, 2-5 for a brief description of the tradition; Airs, Waters, Places. 3 Thomson 1948, 47f. 4 Jouanna 1992, 56f has an account of the history of the “Hippocratic question.” 7

characteristics in a given site’s inhabitants.5 The second half contains the ethnography,

although its ultimate aim is to facilitate diagnosis and treatment of disease. Ethnography

eventually becomes a literary genre providing, as it were, a template to dictate the form which descriptions of foreign peoples might take. Hippocrates’ detailed description of the Scythians provides evidence of an older nomadic archetype from which Sallust draws in order to describe his Africans. It is therefore particularly appropriate for discussing

Sallust’s Jugurtha. While the factual truth of Sallust’s account is not of particular concern for my discussion, it should be noted that the use of an archetype does not imply falsehood. Rather it informs the processes of selection and form for the discussion.6

Herodotus also uses a similar archetype to describe the Scythians in his Scythian logos.

Hence we can reconstruct the ancient conception of how national character is influenced by a certain type of environment. This view of course changes over time, but it maintains a basic assumption that the development of national character derives profound influence from its physical environment.7 As the tradition matures into the

Roman period, different authors with different concerns at a different time appropriate

the same basic assumption as it suits them. Sallust’s treatment of ethnography in his

African excursus8 reflects remnants of the earlier Greek tradition and its Roman appropriation.

As the tradition would have us expect, Sallust begins his African ethnography by

defining the geographic boundaries of the land. Most, according to Sallust, divide the

world into three continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. But the few who divide the world

5 Airs 1-11. 6See Anderson 1938, 29f for a discussion of a common form imposed upon ethnographies and the implications of this. 7 C.f., for example, Plato, De Legibus 747d. 8 BI 17-19. 8

into two continents, Europe and Asia, consider Africa to be a part of Europe.9 He then

goes on to define the boundaries of Africa10 and describe its climate and habitation.11

Following this, Sallust proceeds to talk about the origins of its human inhabitants and how the natives mixed with Asian immigrants.12 After Hercules died in Spain, according

to Sallust, his army composed of Persians, Medes, and Armenians dissolves and comes to

Africa in a fragmented state. Upon reaching African shores, the Persians mix with the

native Gaetulians to become the Numidians, while the Armenians and Medes mix with

Libyans to become the Mauri.13 Sallust is frank, however, about the doubtfulness of his

source for the myth of Numidia’s origin. This is the account ex libris Punicis.14 What is

more Sallust disclaims before recounting the tale, ceterum fides eius rei penes auctores

erit.15 Punic fides is notoriously treacherous for the ancient Roman. Sallust thus casts

serious doubt upon the historicity of what follows.16 Deliberately casting such doubts on

one’s own work has a certain effect. The reader confronted with admittedly nonfactual

information in the text of an ancient historian is called upon to read the author’s account

with a view to how that account can make sense of the narrative at large and, conversely,

to how the larger narrative can make sense of such a mythological account.17 With such

a precept in mind, Sallust’s African excursus needs to be read within the context of an

9 BI 17.3; for other references concerning the division of continents, see Housman 1926 and the note at 9.413. 10 BI 17.4. 11 BI 17.5-6. 12 BI 18. 13 Cf. Manilius 4.728-30 and Housman’s note ad loc., where Manilius gives us an etymology of Mauritania from the Greek μαῦρος. Sallust’s etymology for the name of the Mauri involves a bastardization of “Medes.” 14 BI 17.7 “from the Punic books.” 15 BI 17.7 “but the matter’s trustworthiness will rest with its authors.” 16 Green 1993, 192. 17 Hartog 1988, the preface provides a good, extended discussion along similar lines on how to read Herodotus. 9

ethnographic tradition in which an author might use the land in order to construct a national identity. Sallust’s engagement with that tradition becomes obvious from the organization of his account18 and certain details, such as the Hercules myth, which tends

to show up in ethnographic accounts.19 Sallust explicitly draws out the development of

the settled Numidians from an origin in nomadism, a historical development which he

strengthens by claiming that the very name, Numidae, is derived from the Greek,

nomades.20 I believe that this connection is perhaps more complex than is immediately apparent, however. My approach will be to begin with the ways in which Sallust’s treatment of the native Africans compares with Hippocrates’ and Herodotus’ treatment of the Scythian nomads and Scythia itself. I begin with these merely as the starting point from which we begin to see the ethnographic tradition, however, and will discuss the development of that tradition into the form appropriated by our author in the present text.

For it is more likely that Sallust uses a tradition at his disposal, and does not allude simply to one author.

In describing the geography of Africa, Sallust craftily places his Numidians in a

second Scythia as Hippocrates describes Scythia in the treatise, Airs, Waters, Places. In

the first part Sallust describes the landscape of Africa as arbori infecundus and plagued

by a caelo terraque penuria aquarum.21 This is more than simply a physical description

of the landscape, however, for anyone knowledgeable about the ethnographic tradition.

Hippocrates speaks similarly of the Scythian desert.

18 Thomas 1982, 1. 19 E.g. Hdt. 4.8f; Tac. Germ. 3. 20 BI 18.7-8. 21 BI 17.5 “barren of trees;” “lack of water from the ground and the sky.” 10

ἡ δὲ Σκυθέων ἐρημίη καλευμένη πεδιάς ἐστι καὶ λειμακώδης καὶ ψιλὴ καὶ ἔνυδρος μετρίως. ποταμοὶ γάρ εἰσι μεγάλοι οἳ ἐξοχετεύουσι τὸ ὕδωρ ἐκ τῶν πεδίων. Airs 18.6 f.

The plain of the Scythians, which is called a desert, is grassy, bare, and modestly watered. For there are great rivers which drain the plains of water.

Both Africa and Scythia are characterized by a lack of trees. Neither has an excess of sitting water.22 Herodotus’ description of Scythia also speaks of a land bare of trees,23

but he is unequivocal that the plain is quite well-watered.24 The African terrain,

moreover, is inhabited by genus hominum salubri corpore, velox, patiens laborum.25

This is exactly what Hippocrates would have expected, since dry soil generally creates stout characters.26 More specifically, plerosque senectus dissoluit, nisi qui ferro aut

bestiis interiere, nam morbus haud saepe quemquam superat.27 Strong health is a

characteristic presumably found in Hippocrates’ Scythia as well. His general statements lead one to that conclusion anyway.

καὶ εἰ μὲν ποταμοὶ ἐνείησαν ἐν τηῖ χώρηι, οἵτινες ἐκ τῆς χώρης ἐξοχετεύουσι τό τε στάσιμον καὶ τὸ ὄμβριον, οὗτοι ἂν ὑγιηροί τε εἴησαν καὶ λαμπροί. (Airs 24.22)

And should there be a river in the land to drain the stagnant water and the rain, these (men) would be both healthy and with clear complection.

22 Although it could be argued that μετρίως and penuria do not indicate the same amount, this is largely interpretive. First the explanatory sentence following it emphasizes that it is μετρίως because rivers drain water away. Thus “not excessive,” becomes the best rendering in order to translate the privative emphasis in its use here. Second, penuria aquarum can not be taken too strongly here, presumably, when it describes a land which has, ager frugum fertilis (17.5). 23 Hdt. 4.61. 24 Hdt. 4.48. The river system is quite important to Herodotus, apparently, as he describes it in some detail at about 4.90ff. 25 BI 17.6 “a race of men with a healthy body, fierce, tough under labor.” 26 Airs 24. 27 BI 17.6 “Old age kills most, except those who die by sword or beasts. For disease scarcely overcomes anyone.” 11

This general statement appears toward the end of the treatise, but it must apply to Scythia as a place drained by rivers. Scythia must promote good health as well. Similarly, there appears to be a direct connection with the geography of Africa, as Sallust describes it, and the health of its inhabitants. Herodotus even indicates that the Libyans, specifically the nomadic Libyans, are the healthiest people in the world.28 A correlation thus emerges

when we note the supposed similarities of different races inhabiting similar geographies.

Plato’s Laws goes so far as to prescribe a site for a city which will foster strong character

in its inhabitants.29 Through this correlation, therefore, a founder might have a hand in

the construction of his people’s national character by choosing a better site for his city.

Similarly an author might construct a people or a people-type through selective

geographic discourse. As the digression continues, Sallust talks about the origins of the inhabitants of Africa.

The myth of Numidian origins strongly likens the Numidians to the Scythians as

Hippocrates represents them. While this assertion does not exhaustively analyze the

myth, it is one of many traditions informing Sallust’s account. The myth itself, coming

from the Punic books as Sallust would have us believe, has come under question

regarding its accuracy. As stated above, Green believes that Sallust deliberately casts

doubt on the myth’s accuracy by citing the Punic books as his source.30 Robert

Morstein-Marx finds the citation of the Punic books for the myth credible enough,

although he is convinced that Sallust must have altered the myth itself somewhat to fit his

28 Hdt. 4.187; Sallust is therefore not doing anything new in describing the inhabitants of Africa as healthy people, but engaging in a tradition that already does this. As primitive nomads, their type calls for a certain form of description. 29 Plato, Laws 747d. 30 Green 1993, 192. 12

program.31 However Sallust comes by the myth, whether it be from his own head or

from some external source, he seems to weave it into the ethnographic tradition quite

purposefully. Sallust reinforces and insists upon the identity of the Numidians as nomads whose description resembles that of the Scythian nomads. This becomes clear from a comparison of Sallust’s description of the Numidians with previous traditions concerning

the Scythians.

Sallust’s first sentence concerning the native Africans speaks of the Gaetuli et

Libyes, asperi incultique, quis cibus erat caro ferina atque humi pabulum uti pecoribus.32

This fits in with a Sallustian theme defining the Africans as closer to the beasts than the

Romans.33 But the fact that they eat meat is significant in itself. Hippocrates states that

the Scythian nomads eat boiled meat and mare’s milk.34 While the connection may seem tenuous, since meat is such a common diet among men in just about any time, Sallust echos the Hippocratic treatise more strongly when he describes the diet of the inhabitants of Capsa, who, plerumque lacte et ferina carne uescebantur et neque salem neque alia inritamenta gulae quaerebant.35 In this case we find an instance of a battle narrative

simultaneously being illuminated by and illuminating the ethnographic tradition at play in

the African excursus. Thus Sallust identifies his Gaetulians and Libyans as nomadic

peoples.36 Whether this is in itself convincing or not, Sallust does not remain so cryptic.

31 Morstein-Marx 2001, 197. 32 BI 18.1 “…Gaetulians and Libyans, a rough and uncultivated people, for whom food was game and the fodder from the earth, as it is for beasts.” 33 i.e. They are more akin to corporis seruitium than animi imperium, as noted by Morstein-Marx 180-1. 34 Airs, 18.24. 35 BI 89.7 “would live on milk and game and seek neither salt nor other stimulations of the pallet.” 36 In Keyser 1991, 61-2, Paul Keyser looks for parallels of meateaters from “long ago” without success. The point, as I take it, is not to identify the African inhabitants with a type of people of an older world, but to identify them as a nomadic or primitive type. The Scythians, moreover, would likely have been thought of as ancient. 13

The strongest and most obvious indication that Sallust purposefully likens the

Numidians to the Scythian Nomads is that he explicitly spells it out for us. That is to say that the Numidians, like the Scythians, are nomadic. This is true of all the African natives.

Ii neque moribus neque lege aut imperio quoiusquam regebantur: uagi, palantes, quas nox coegerat sedes habebant. (BI 18.2)

They were ruled by neither conventions, nor law, nor government: wandering vagabonds, they considered their home where night had gathered them.

Eventually, the Gaetulians and the Persians mix to create the Numidians and the Medes and Armenians mix with the Libyans to create the Mauri.37 Thus both nations have nomadic peoples in their origins. Sallust narrates the cultural amalgamation which creates the Numidians.

Ii paulatim per conubia Gaetulos secum miscuere et, quia saepe temptantes agros alia, deinde alia loca petiuerant, semet ipsi Nomadas appellauere. (BI 18.7)

Little by little they mixed the Gaetulians with themselves by way of marriage and, because they often sought some places exploring grazing grounds38 and then sought other places, they called themselves Nomads.

Similarly, Hippocrates’ Scythian nomads,

μένουσι δ’ ἐν τωῖ αὐτωῖ τοσοῦτον χρόνον, ὅσον ἂν ἀποχρηῖ αυτοῖσι τοῖς κτήνεσιν ὁ χόρτος· ὁκόταν δὲ μηκέτι, ἐς ἑτέρην χώρην ἔρχονται.

They stay in the same place only so long as the grazing land sustains their cattle; and whenever this is no longer the case, they go to other grounds.

37 BI 18.7-10. 38 Keyser 1991, 56 and Green 1993, 191 want to take temptantes agros as an indication that these are agricultural nomads. The fact that people “try out fields” for agriculture, however, in no way explains why (quia) they would call themselves nomads. The sense of ager here, therefore, must simply be “territory,” or as Morstein-Marx 2001, 185 has it, “pastures.” The advantage of the latter possibility is that it reflects Hippocrates’ statement concerning the Scythian nomads. 14

Just like the Scythians, the Numidians are nomadic people. Their respective dwellings seem to be similarly a function of this lifestyle. Sallust’s Persians, one of the proto-

Numidian peoples, convert their ships into their dwellings.

Sed Persae intra Oceanum magis iique alueos nauium inuorsos pro tuguriis habere, quia non materia in agris. (BI 18.5)

But the Persians were closer to a peninsula, and they used the inverted hulls of their ships for huts, because there was not any wood in the fields.

Robert Morstein-Marx has observed the significance of this use of ships.39 It is a strong

rejection of maritime activity, a traditionally corrupting and softening factor in the

Roman mindset. Because trade by sea can facilitate the spread of luxuria, it can corrupt primitive cultures whose lack of sophistication would not otherwise allow them to fall prey to such temptation.40 There is another level of significance, however, in the detail

of the Africans’ dwellings. For the Numidians, to this very day, according to Sallust,

dwell in ship-like structures.

Ceterum adhuc aedificia Numidarum agrestium, quae mapalia illi uocant, oblonga, incuruis lateribus tecta, quasi nauium carinae sunt. (BI 18.8)

But to this day the houses of the rustic Numidians, which they call mapalia, are oblong and roofed with curved ceilings, just as if they are ship hulls.

Sallust strongly implies a sort of evolution of the Numidian house from inverted ships to

these mobile homes with curved roofs. The mobile home is a traditional sign of

nomadism.41 Thus Hippocrates’ Scythian nomads live in wagons.

39 Morstein-Marx 2001, 185. 40 Caesar BG 1.1 illustrates the Roman concern with corruption resulting from trade: Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant, atque ea, quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent, important; 41 Morstein-Marx 2001, 185, n.24, makes a good point about this. 15

ἐνταῦθα καὶ οἱ Σκύθαι διαιτεῦνται, Νομάδες δὲ καλεῦνται, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν οἰκήματα, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁμάξηισιν οἰκεῦσιν. (Airs, 18.8-10)

Here also the Scythians dwell, and they are called Nomads, because there are no houses, but rather they live in wagons.

The causal connection is very strong. Because they live in wagons, they are called

Nomads. Sallust cites this actual nomadism as the reason for the Numidians naming their race thus.42 But it is not random that both habits and dwellings are defining features for

both peoples. The ships appear to have worked as mobile homes, as the Persians of

Africa became a nomadic race. They stand in place of Hippocrates’ wagons. The

substitution of ships for wagons indicates, I think, Sallust’s Romanization of the tradition.

While it is not specifically Roman to view the sea as a source of corruption,43 it is

particularly characteristic of Sallust to view that corruption as a force which weakens

nations.44 Thus Sallust has drawn on a Greek ethnographic concept of primitive

nomadism while altering it to speak to a Roman audience. Rejection of maritime activity

implies a stout national character.

Similar illumination comes from comparing Sallust’s representation of the

Gaetulians with a traditional symmetrical matrix characteristic of the ethnographic tradition. Sallust seems to represent the land of the Gaetulians as a sort of parallel to the

Scythian desert when summing up his discussion of the inhabitants of Africa.

Super Numidiam Gaetulos accepimus partim in tuguriis, alios incultius uagos agitare, post eos Aethiopas esse, dehinc loca exusta solis ardoribus. (BI 19.5)

Beyond Numidia I have found that some of the Gaetulians dwell in huts and others live unsettled as wanderers, and that beyond them are the Ethiopians, and that the places from that point on are utterly burned by the rays of the sun.

42 As Morstein-Marx 2001, 185 humorously points out, the Numidians apparently knew Greek. 43 Cf. Plato, Laws 4.704d-705b. 44 Scanlon 1980, 25-34; Earl 1967, 11-43 talks about this as a Roman viewpoint. 16

Hippocrates, I believe, describes the Scythians antithetically.

τὰ δὲ πνεύματα τὰ ἀπὸ τῶν θερμῶν πνέοντα οὐκ ἀφικνεῖται, ἢν μὴ ὀλιγάκις καὶ ἀσθενέα, ἀλλ’ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄρκτων αἰεὶ πνέουσι πνεύματα ψυχρὰ ἀπό τε χιόνος καὶ κρυστάλλου καὶ ὑδάτων πολλῶν. οὐδέποτε δὲ τὰ ὄρεα ἐκλείπει· ἀπὸ τούτων δὲ δυσοίκητά ἐστιν. (Airs, 19)

And the winds blowing from the hot zones do not reach [here], outside of small, weak bursts, but always the winds blow from the arctic zones chilled from the snow, ice and heavy rains. But never do they leave the mountains; and because of these, [the mountains] are uninhabitable.

Brevity is a Sallustian hallmark. Sallust puts his Gaetulians, who are associated both with Numidians as one element of their ethnic ingredients, so to speak, and with Jugurtha himself as he ends up in charge of most of them,45 as close to the scorched region of the

earth as possible. Although Sallust does not explicitly mention it, this region was

traditionally uninhabitable.46 The ancient practice of geography tended to impose

symmetry upon the world.47 As Hippocrates’ Scythians border the land to their north, uninhabitable because of the cold, Sallust’s Gaetulians mirror them to the south, bordering land uninhabitable due to the heat. Sallust’s Gaetulians are separated from the scorched region by the Ethiopians. Herodotus similarly places the Scythians such that one tribe, the Blackcoats, separates them from the uninhabitable region to the north.48

The Gaetulians, moreover, are linked to the Numidians, and to Jugurtha’s Numidians in

particular.49 In the end it is important to remember that the Numidians are not really

45 BI 19.5. 46 Aris. Meteorologica 362; Posidonius, Frag. 49 in L. Edelstein and I G Kidd 1972; Sallust seems to imply this with exusta. 47 Green 1993, 188; Hartog 1988, 12-19; Thompson 1948, 98-100; Herodotus, 4.36; Cf. Aristotle, Meteorologica, 363b f which assumes this view. 48 Hdt. 4.20. 49 BI 19.7. 17

nomadic during the period of Sallust’s account. Sallust, however, emphasizes their nomad-ishness. The question of why remains.

It is clear that the ethnographic tradition was alive and well in Sallust’s day.

Richard Thomas’ book, Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry,50 more than adequately

demonstrates this fact.51 The existence of Tacitus’ Germania, moreover, is evidence that

the genre of ethnography could still be a self-contained piece of literature. As for the

specific ethnographic ideas which we see in Greek thought, the Roman era exhibits a continuous tradition that changed over time.

While nothing in the Roman tradition connects the type of geography with the

type of inhabitant in the manner of Hippocrates’ Airs, Waters, Places, we still see ripples

from this idea appearing in Roman authors. Certainly we see this in the time of Cicero.

dissimilitudo locorum nonne dissimiles hominum procreationes habet? Quas quidem percurrere oratione facile est, quid inter Indos et Persas, Aethiopas et Syros differat corporibus, animis, ut incredibilis varietas dissimilitudoque sit. Ex quo intellegitur plus terrarum situs quam lunae tactus ad nascendum valere. (Cic. De Div. II.96-7)

Doesn’t the difference in location produce different stocks of men? It is certainly easy to go through these (differences) in a speech, that is, what differs in the body and the mind between the Indi and the Persians, as well as the Ethiopians and the Syrians, so that the variance and the difference is incredible. By this it is known that bearings on the earth are more influential than the effects of the moon in the outcome of reproduction.

The idea of a land’s influence on the nature of a man’s body and mind is prevalent

enough in Cicero’s time that he can appeal to its existence as evidence of the moon’s lack

of influence on the same faculties. The idea maintains its grip, moreover, through the

50Thomas, 1982, to which I am much indebted for my understanding of the ethnographic tradition as it appears in Roman times. I have used this as a sort of guide. 51 Thomas, 1982 focuses on the ethnographic tradition as it shows up in poetry. Accordingly, his discussion of Sallust is quite minimal. 18

time of Sallust. Thus by his time Manilius implies this very relationship, although with little value judgment.

iam proprior tellusque natans Aegyptia Nilo lenius inriguis infuscat corpora campis. (Ast. 4.726-7)

now the land of Egypt floating closer to the Nile more mildly darkens bodies by the flooding of the field.

Although Manilius is not explicit, the implication seems to be that Egypt’s proximity to the Nile is what darkens the people. Another example will perhaps make the case more convincing.

adde sonos totidem uocum, totidem insere linguas et mores pro sorte pares ritusque locorum. (Ast. 4.731-2)

Throw on the same number of sounds of voices (as there are nations52), and bring in just as many languages as well as the customs and rites appropriate to region of their places.

Manilius appears to suggest that certain customs and ceremonies are appropriate for

certain locales. It is entirely reasonable to read the passage such that sonos and linguas

are also pro sorte locorum pares. The interesting part about this is that Manilius, for the

most part, is not especially concerned with making value judgments of these peoples. He

rather neutrally reflects the notion that location affects its inhabitants not simply in their

physical characteristics, but in their mores ritusque as well. Thus from these three

instances, it is shown that the mind, body, and practices of an individual or a nation is in

part determined by geography. Not all Roman authors share this value-free assessment,

however.

52 Housman 1937 ad loc. 19

The image of the primitive nomad was very much alive in the Roman era as well.

Certainly, Posidonius was a major figure in this ethnographic scene.53 Although we have

much evidence for his ethnographies, there are problems in reconstructing his use of them

have resulted from a lack of interest in context among his epitomizers. 54 There are

intimations, however, that Posidonius was interested in the effect geography had on a

nation’s makeup.55 Nomadism in particular, moreover, is naturally a point of interest for

a highly developed society such as Rome. Interestingly, the Scythian still appears to be a model. Thus Pompeius Trogus as we have it through Justin makes appropriate remarks.

haec continentia illis morum quoque iustitiam edidit, nihil alienum concupiscentibus; quippe ibidem divitiarum cupido est, ubi et usus. (Pomp. Trog. ap Iust. 2.2)

This self-control also produced in them an uprightness in their habits, as they desired nothing not belonging to them; of course, since desire for wealth is to be found with its enjoyment.

Trogus explicitly links Scythians to the virtue of not indulging in auaritia. This image of

the Scythian is therefore particularly useful, since auaritia is a major theme in Sallust

about which Sallust has great qualms. Usus, moreover, might be linked with luxuria.

We gain evidence, furthermore, from this same author of another idea which will become relevant in my final chapter.

prorsus ut admirabile videatur, hoc illis naturam dare quod Graeci longa sapientium doctrina praeceptisque philosophorum consequi nequeunt cultosque mores incultae barbariae collatione superari. (2.2)

…certainly as would seem astonishing, that nature should give to these people that very thing which the Greeks are not able to adhere to by the long doctrine of

53 E.g. see Edelstein and Kidd 1972, fragments, T80; F49; 53; esp. 67-69; 73; 272; 274; 277; 280; 281; 283 54 Kidd 1972, 308-310. 55 Edelstein and Kidd 1972, F280. 20

the wise and the teachings of the philosophers, namely the ability to surpass habits formed by the barbarian nation in comparison.

The interesting idea reflected here is that Greeks found themselves unable to copy that virtue found in primitive cultures. Apparently the Romans saw something in the true nature of primitive societies which could not be copied artificially. One wonders whether it was the effects of environment. This image of the Scythian, moreover, was not a later reinvention. We see a similar image in Cicero’s reported letter of an Anacharsis, who discusses his Scythian lifestyle.

Mihi amictui est Scythicum tegimen, calciamentum solorum callum, cubile terra, pulpamentum fames; lacte, caseo, carne vescor. (Cic. Tusc. Disp. 5.90)

My garment is a Scythian cloak, my shoe, the thick skin of the soles of my feet, my bedroom, the earth, my choice of food, hunger; I live off milk, cheese, and meat.

Cicero provides a good description of the Scythians and lets us know that the traditional image of the nomad was certainly available in Sallust’s day. The description more or less fits: he sleeps outside, drinks milk, and eats meat. Sallust uses all of these to describe his

Numidians. While there seems to be a greater preoccupation with the dangers of luxuria amongst Roman authors, there is an essential similarity with the Greek tradition in that there is a constant concern with the line of division between civilized and uncivilized.

The opposition between Rome and Numidia—or perhaps it is better stated as that between Rome and Jugurtha—then becomes one between civilized and uncivilized. This opposition goes all the way back to the Odyssey, where the barbaric nature of the cyclops is underlined.56 Herodotus took those defining barbaric characteristics of the mythical

cyclops and created an equivalent society in historical space through his description of

56 Odyssey 10. 21

the Ἀνδροφάγοι.57 These neighbors of the Scythians, who themselves appear to reject

outside cultural influences,58 are part of a list of less civilized societies whose land Darius must cross in his effort to take revenge against the Scythians. Like the native Africans, the Ἀνδροφάγοι are neither subject to laws nor reliant on agriculture. Thus Herodotus’

Darius finds himself in a very similar position to that in which Sallust’s Romans find themselves. Morstein-Marx is, in this sense at least, quite correct to read the Numidians as an anti-Roman people.59 What exactly this opposition entails, however, is not quite

the same for both authors. For Sallust, the process of civilization is simultaneously one

of advancement and degradation.

After narrating the fall of Thala, Sallust inserts a digression on an egregium atque

mirabile facinus duorum Carthaginiensium.60 The occasion for this digression is a brief

mention of the town Leptis. After mentioning the town itself, Sallust describes the two

harbors both called Syrtis between which the town itself lies. Sallust first describes the actual harbors which change their depth with the wind. He then proceeds to discuss very

briefly the local customs before going into an egregium facinus. In short, Sallust draws

out a truncated local ethnography of this area alone. Once he is through, Sallust moves

his narrative back to Metellus leaving one wondering why he would bring up such a

detail in the first place. Since the reader gains almost nothing from the passing reference to the town itself, its inclusion is curious, unless we assume that the digression itself was

57 Asheri, et al 2007, 656: Hdt. 4.105 Ανδροφάγοι δὲ ἀγριώτατα πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἔχουσι ἤθεα, οὔτε δίκην νομίζοντες οὔτε νόμωι οὐδενὶ χρεώμενοι. 58 Hdt. 4.76. 59 Morstein-Marx 2001, 180 for the thesis. 60 BI 79.1 “outstanding and wondrous deed of two Carthaginians.” 22

the reason for mentioning the town in the first place. The ethnographic assumptions behind the digression will give it its meaning.

Sallust begins with the topography of the region, focusing particularly on its harbors.

Nam duo sunt sinus prope in extrema Africa, inpares magnitudine, pari natura, quorum proxuma terrae praealta sunt, cetera uti fors tulit alta alia, alia in tempestate uadosa. Nam ubi mare magnum esse et saeuire uentis coepit, limum harenamque et saxa ingentia fluctus trahunt: ita facies locorum cum uentis simul mutatur, Syrtes ab tractu nominatae. (BI 78.2-3)

For there are two harbors off the coast of Africa, unequal in size, but with a similar quality, the area of which closest to the land is very deep while the rest of it is, as chance has it, sometimes deep and other times, in the midst of a storm, quite shallow. For when the sea begins to rise and rage with the winds, the waves drag about mud, sand and huge rocks: thus the face of the places changes with the wind, and they are called Syrtes from this dragging about.

Christina Kraus has discussed this passage with reference to the shifting sands in an illuminating way, pointing out that the shifting sands are part of a larger theme pointing to the liquidity of the African landscape and its indication of Jugurtha’s corresponding character. Jugurtha neither respects boundaries nor lends himself to classification.61 In fact it is often quite difficult to impose boundaries on this African landscape as Sallust describes it. I would suggest in addition that Sallust highlights the changing features of the land in order to recall an ethnographic belief found in the Hippocratic corpus that stormy weather can breed a fierce and independent character. In support of this is

Lucan’s description of the same harbor.

Hoc tam segne solum raras tamen exerit herbas, Quas Nasamon, gens dura, legit, qui proxima ponto nudus rura tenet; quem mundi barbara damnis Syrtis alit. Nam litoreis populator harenis Inminet et nulla portus tangente carina

61 Kraus 1997, 28-29; Kraus 1999. 23

Nouit opes: sic cum toto commercia mundo Naufragiis Nasamones habent. Hac ire Catonem Dura iubet uirtus... (Bellum Civile 9.439-445)

This area, though still quite unproductive, still produces the occasional vegetation which the Nasimon, a hardy people, who alone inhabit the land next to the sea, pick. Syrtis feeds them foreign goods of the world by means of losses. For it protrudes up as a pillager in the sand of the shoreline and therefore the harbor admits goods although not a single hull reaches it: thus the Nasamones have trade with the whole world on account of shipwrecks. Here hardy virtue commanded Cato to go.

Lucan’s theme, although similar, is different from Sallust’s.62 Here I would merely point out that Lucan has described an uneven, if not shifting, depth of the harbor and a barren, uncultivated land beside the sea. Moreover, he has explicitly linked this area, inhabited by a dura gens, to Cato’s dura virtus. Shipwrecks, in Lucan’s mind, are the most ethnographically sound means of trading in foreign goods. The area thus remains untainted by foreign traders and accordingly safe from the evils of luxuria. Whether

Lucan used Sallust’s description or tapped into a common tradition, it would appear that this location lent itself to ethical ethnographic discourse.

Presented with Syrtis, the reader is perhaps ready to hear a story of virtue. As

Sallust proceeds, he begins to talk about the inhabitants, although he is once again quite

selective in what he says.

Eius ciuitatis lingua modo conuorsa conubio Numidarum, legum cultusque pleraque Sidonica, quae eo facilius retinebant quod procul ab imperio regis aetatem agebant: inter illos et frequentem Numidiam multi uastique loci erant. (BI 78.4)

The language alone of this state was altered by its intermarriage with Numidans; most of the laws and the upbringing was Sidonian, which they retained all the more easily because they spent their lives far from the power of the king: between them and the well-populated part of Numidia were many vast areas.

62 Thomas 1982, 108-123 for a good discussion of Lucan’s ethnographic theme in this book. 24

As Sallust continues, he appears to be talking about the inhabitants themselves. But much of what he says is centered around topography once again. The people of Leptis live under their own laws, since they are far away from the central rule of the Numidians.

Interestingly, while this is a settled city, Sallust’s choice of description, I suspect, points to this area as exhibiting conditions of a wild, unsettled land. While one view of ethnographic view indicts closed, primitive cultures,63 the ethnographic assumption

Sallust evokes seems precisely opposite. For example we have seen Lucan’s treatment,

in which the description is used rather as an indictment against the evils of civilization.

This comes out even more clearly earlier in the book.

sed citri contenta comis uiuebat et umbra. in nemus ignotum nostrae uenere secures, extremoque epulas mensasque petimus ab orbe. (Bellum Civile 9.228-30)

But rather they lived satisfied with the leaves of the citrus tree and its shadow. Our axes came into unknown glades , and we sought feasts as well as tables from the ends of the Earth.

Lucan strikingly contrasts the natives’ contentment with shade with Rome’s insatiable

desire for luxuria which extends not only to exotic foods, but exotic tables on which to place that food as well.64 While Sallust clearly uses this concept in his ethnography, he

seems to be tackling a different problem. How ought civilization be spread in such a way

that these evils can be avoided? Is it even possible? Certainly Sallust emphasizes the

wildness of the landscape of Syrtis once the digression begins, whether or not he does so from his first mention of the place.

After emphasizing the desolate location of the town, Sallust uses his constructed

setting as a background for a myth or a local legend of the brothers Philaeni, two

63 E.g. Hdt, 4.76. 64 Thomas 1982, 111. 25

Carthaginian youths, who accomplished a wondrous deed.65 At a time when Carthage

still ruled and Cyrene was a rival power to the east, the location of the boundary between

the two powers came under dispute. Wars were fought until each power began to fear

lest a third party come in and take advantage of both states whose resources were

constantly depleted by war. Both agreed to a treaty, therefore, in which each would send

a party toward one another simultaneously. Wherever the two parties should meet would

be the established border. When the envoys do meet, however, the Philaeni have gained

a major advantage for Carthage after covering twice the distance of the Cyrenian envoy.

Fearing for their safety as a result, the Cyrenian envoy accuses the Philaeni of foul play,

and demands that they keep the border which they have won only on the condition that

they be buried alive on the spot. The Philaeni concede, and are buried alive. The

Carthaginians therefore honor the Philaeni with altars at the site of their sacrifice and

domi honores instituti.66 As for the cause of the Cyrenian envoy’s delay, Sallust does not claim knowledge. He is willing to speculate, however, that a storm might have caused it, since this region apparently experiences the same winds which cause the shifting depths in the harbor.

The meaning of this digression has aroused some interest in scholarly discussion.

Thomas Wiedemann has pointed out the organizational function of the digressions.

According to Wiedemann, three digressions in Sallust mark off distinct stages of concord/discord among various characters.67 So, in his view, three different digressions

in the text introduce three different ethical states of concord or discord in which we find

65 BI 79. 66 BI 79.10 “honors were instituted (for them) at home.” 67 Wiedemann 1993. 26

the main actors.68 While his insight of a thematic thread of concord vs. discord is sound

enough, his claim that the cooperation of the Philaeni with the state reflects the

cooperation between Marius and Sulla is unconvincing.69 Both Kraus and Green have

noted the problem of boundaries as the major theme in the digression.70 Green accordingly claims that the point of the digression is that self-sacrifice, and not war, establishes the demarcation of borders. This, he notes, is also the point in Herodotus’ tales of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis. Kraus notes that the very etymology of

Syrtes from σύρω brings to our immediate attention the Numidian lack of boundaries, due to the shifting sands, and that the deed of the Philaeni sets up Carthage as a force which imposes order upon disorder. The imposition of boundaries is clearly an issue, as is evidenced by Sallust’s use of the arae Philaeni as boundaries in his African excursus.71

The absence of boundaries emphasizes Syrtes as an amorphous region outside the constraints of civilization. The location is perhaps more literary than literal.

This particular legend is a nexus of geographic and ethnographic themes throughout the monograph. Sallust uses the legend to juxtapose ideas of overcoming the natura loci, civilization vs. primitivism, and perhaps uirtus as well. When the party from

Cyrene moves more slowly, Sallust speculates on the cause.

Id socordiane an casu adciderit parum cognovi. Ceterum solet in illis locis tempestas haud secus atque in mari retinere; nam ubi per loca aequalia et nuda gignentium uentus coortus harenam humo excitauit, ea magna ui agitata ora oculosque inplere solet: ita prospectu inpedito morari iter. (BI 79.6)

68 Wiedemann’s main point is well taken, but he is often selectively attentive and can therefore be too schematic in his arguments. Moreover, he ignores the evolving face of the individual Roman commanders throughout the narrative. 69 If there is a marked theme of cooperation here it is more likely that between the two states. 70 Kraus 1997, 28-29; Kraus 1999; Green 1992, 196; Syme 1964, 148 notes Africa’s general topographic hostility toward demarcation. 71 BI 19.3. 27

I know not whether this happened as a result of sluggishness or chance. But often a storm will last in that region not less than it would at sea; for when a wind has picked up along flat regions bare of vegetation and has stirred the sand from the ground, the sand, blown with great force, frequently fills (peoples’) mouths and eyes: thus the journey is delayed due to the obstruction of visibility.

Sallust’s description of the land and the climate fit very well into the ethnographic tradition. It is a land with frequent storms and bare of vegetation. The sandstorms, moreover, suggest thin, dry soil. In short it is exactly what that Hippocratic author speaks of when he outlines one of the environments which have a strong formative influence on its inhabitants.

ὁκόσοι δὲ λεπτά τε καὶ ἄνυδρα καὶ ψιλά, τηῖσι μεταβοληῖσι τῶν ὡρέων οὐκ εὔκρητα ἐν ταύτηι τηῖ χώρηι τὰ εἴδεα εἰκὸς σκληρά τε εἶναι και ἔντονα καὶ ξανθότερα ἢ μελάντερα καὶ τὰ ἢθεα καὶ τὰς ὀργὰς αὐθάδεάς τε καὶ ἰδιογνώμονας. (Airs 24)

And those who dwell on thin, dry and bare ground, not at all temperate in the change of seasons, on this land it is likely hardy in their physique and sinewy, blond or dark, stubborn in their ways and dispositions, and fond of their own opinions.

This landscape, in other words, produces independent people who are hostile to the imposition of external order. Sallust’s description constructs the exact set of conditions which constitute a wild, savage landscape. The idea of people struggling against sandstorms in this same area finds pronounced precedent in Herodotus, where the Psylli actually march against the south wind and are all buried in sand.72 In establishing the

arae Philaeni, the Carthaginians do indeed impose order upon this place and the wildness

which this place represents. Sallust narrates, in a sense, how Syrtis came to be a part of

historical space so that it might contain Leptis. Thus the story of the brothers Philaeni is

72 Hdt. 4.173, which is also perhaps a precedent for a story of people being buried alive in the area. 28

one of civilizing the frontier. Both the Philaeni and the Cyrenians traversed this frontier, but the Philaeni got twice as far.73 Sallust suggests the possibility of the weather being a

delaying factor for the Cyrenians, but he does not claim to know this. He mentions that

the Philaeni did maturauere iter pergere, but does not explicitly state that the wind was

altogether kind to them. Thus we are left not knowing what really happened. What we

do know, however, is that in the end any help the Philaeni received from the magna ui of

the wind by chance (casu) was not enough to establish a border for their state. They

conceded to being buried alive in order to maintain the border which they had just won.

While Sallust does not mention uirtus in this passage, he does depict two figures who did

not need fortuna—for that is the nature of virtus74—and who were rewarded with

honores, which appears, in Sallust’s opinion, to be the appropriate reward for uirtus.75

The story of the Philaeni brothers, then, thus becomes the paradigm of virtue.

Sallust makes it clear in his prologue that his purpose in writing history is, like the

maiorum imagines, animum ad uirtutem adcendi.76 The brothers Philaeni, therefore, are

the ideal: they need not casus to achieve egregria facinora in their pursuit of honores and

lasting gloria. As Herodotus has placed the mythical Maneaters into historical space,

Sallust has taken historical Syrtes and transported it back into mythical space so that he

might display an ideal from which men must degenerate. His historical narrative,

although it displays uirtus in some ways, is thus a watered down version of the older,

mythical uirtus. Throughout that narrative interaction with the land will display one side

of uirtus or the lack thereof. The reader can see the Roman drama unfold as their

73 Paul 1984, ad loc. 74 BI 3.1. 75 BI 3.1. 76 BI 4.5 “busts of our ancestors,” “that the mind be inflamed to virtue.” 29

alienation from the African geography contrasts with the Numidian comfort with that geography. As time goes on, however, the Roman army appears to take on the appearance and the tactics of the Numidians. The question will result: what did Rome gain and what did that do to Rome’s national character?

The Rhetoric of Geography

War is necessarily difficult. Combat in any form with any sort of opponent

presents one of the greatest challenges. When a great state crosses the sea to take on a

lesser, more primitive state, however, other issues arise. Assumptions fundamental to

war can come under challenge: the nature of warfare (what are the best tactics), the goal

of warfare (what constitutes victory). Thus American troops in Vietnam, trained to

equate victory with the acquisition of ground were thwarted in their attempt to win the

war despite the high number of “victorious” encounters with their enemy. Rome’s

conflict with Numidia in the end of the second century BC appears to have brought

similar challenges to bear, as the Roman army chased Jugurtha across the African

countryside. It is not so surprising, therefore, that Sallust’s narrative of the Roman

campaigns stresses the problems which the African wild might pose for the Roman army.

Nor is it surprising that Jugurtha would use such an approach, one of guerilla tactics, to

take on so formidable an enemy on his own turf. Both Jugurtha’s tactics and Rome’s

problems in dealing with them make sense.

Yet it would be a mistake not to read Sallust’s account of that war with a view to

morality. Morality, for Sallust, is the major driving force which strengthens and weakens nations and moves historical processes.1 Thus, while it is an oversimplification to say

that Sallust must clearly depict one person as bad and another good, it is most certainly

warranted to look for judgments of specific aspects and deeds which make up each moral

character. Sallust constructs, in other words, dynamic characters which exhibit specific

1 Scanlon 1980, 25-31. 31

strengths and weaknesses in their moral composition. We have seen this process on the level of a predisposed national character in the last chapter. This chapter examines the construction of character on a more immediate level of the events in the narrative.

More specifically, the goal of this chapter is to investigate Sallust’s constructive use of geography within the historical narrative proper. Once Metellus comes onto the scene, Sallust’s highly organized battle narrative breaks down into a chiastically structured ring composition, the first half of which is devoted to Metellus’ campaign, and the second half, Marius’. This ring has been discussed in terms of how each of the two commander’s respective battles is similar, whence comes the ring, and different, whence we might discern differences between the two commanders. Certainly the campaigns of

Marius and Metellus do indeed form a ring, and certainly similarities are used to create this ring. Certainly, furthermore, do pointed differences stand out between each element of the ring and its correlate. There is, however, also a linear, progressive process by which the Roman army takes on the appearance of the Numidian army. This process most markedly appears in Marius’ Jugurthine ability to work in harmony with the geography of Africa. So while the Romans are constantly fighting the harshness of the land in the beginning, Marius’ final battles exhibit the Romans’ new-found ability to work with the environment and use it against the Numidians. The question remains, however, whether this comfort is a function of certain predispositions characterizing

Marius when he enters the scene or a function of Roman acclimatization to Numidian ways. Such possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

Whatever the case, Sallust develops character throughout these battle narratives.

Strengths and weaknesses reveal themselves during this process in which the Romans

assume the Numidian comfort with the land. Certain terms used indicate that this process is not merely concomitant with Sallust’s construction of character, but rather a means by which he achieves that very construction. Organized in a ring, therefore, the battle narrative in the campaigns of Marius and Metellus reveals a shifting relationship between

Rome’s army and Africa’s geography.

Ring Composition

Selectivity of detail in a narrative as compressed as Sallust’s Bellum Iugurthinum

is necessitated by its very nature. The process of that selection, however, seems entirely

arbitrary without a specific purpose which that selection might fulfill. Reading Sallust’s

work with his literary goals in mind, therefore, will entail the explanation of his, at first

glance, randomly selected narrative. Studies looking at the organization of the Bellum

Iugurthinum have focused on several of the battle narratives as a compositional ring, in

which Marius’ recounted exploits chiastically reflect those of Metellus.2 While Metellus’ campaign is related at some length and is heavily interwoven with what Scanlon has called “reaction narratives,”3 Sallust’s account of Marius’ campaign is relatively quicker

and denser. This shift in pace seems appropriate for a man who values action so much

more than words,4 but it also serves the function of making apparent the annular

organization of the campaigns of the two Roman generals. Once we are through with

Metellus’ campaign, we find ourselves at a digression involving the history of a heroic

2 Cf. Scanlon 1988, 138f provides a quick summary of recent views on ring composition in the BI. 3 Scanlon 1988, 143f. 4 BI 85. 33

deed at the city of Leptis. The digression allows a transition into Marius’ consulship,5 which begins with a speech designed to inflame the nobility and which serves to let us know what Marius views as ideal in a leader. Sallust’s narrative moves quickly to an account of the capture of the Numidian town, Capsa, in chapter 85 (C2). The siege at

Capsa mirrors Metellus’ final siege at Thala in chapter 75 (C1). The ring becomes clear from here as Marius’ siege at a hill fort near the Muluccha River in chapters 92-94 (B2) recalls Metellus’ attacks at Zama in chapters 56-61 and Vaga in chapters 68-69 (B1).

The ring is rounded up when skirmishes against Marius in chapters 96-101 (A2) recall

Metellus’ battle at the Muthul River in chapters 48-54 (A1).

A1: Jugurtha ambushes Metellus at the Muthul River (48-54)

B1: Metellus attacks Zama (56-61), and then leads a revenge campaign against Vaga (68-69).

C1: Metellus besieges Thala (75).

C2: Marius besieges Capsa (89).

B2: Marius attacks the hill fort near the Muluccha River (92-94).

A2: Jugurtha ambushes Marius (96-101).

5 See Wiedemann 1993 for the organizational function of digressions. 34

Once Marius has taken command, his first action of which Sallust offers any detail is a siege of a desert town called Capsa. Almost immediately, verbal cues begin to remind the reader of Metellus’ conquest of another desert town, Thala. While Metellus took a town described as oppidum magnum atque oppulentum, which Jugurtha reaches by traveling in solitudines,6 Marius is taking one described as inter ingentis solitudines

oppidum magnum atque valens.7 Following this Sallust narrates each commander’s first

move to obtain water for the journey.8 Against the chance of his readers not perceiving

the clues he’s offered, Sallust explicitly invites comparison.

Eius potiundi Marium maxuma cupido invaserat, quom propter usum belli, tum quia res aspera videbatur et Metellus oppidum Thalam magna gloria ceperat, haud dissimiliter situm munitumque, nisi quod apud Thalam non longe a moenibus aliquot fontes erant, Capsenses una modo atque ea intra oppidum iugi aqua, cetera pluuia utebantur. (BI 89.6)

A great desire to take control of this town overwhelmed Marius, both on account of value to the war effort and because it seemed a difficult feat and Metellus had earned great glory in taking Thala, which was not differently positioned or guarded, except that at Thala there were a number of springs not far from the walls, whereas the Capsenses used only one constant source of water—and it was within the walls—and rain water as a supplement.

There is no avoiding the comparison. Both take desert towns in pursuit of gloria. As

Sallust recounts, the very purpose of taking Capsa was to take greater gloria than

Metellus had at Thala. While Metellus was following Jugurtha to Thala, Marius simply

marched to Capsa for no reason, and, as Sallust narrates it, with little direct benefit for the

war effort.9 As it appears, both Marius’ decision to take Capsa and Sallust’s own

6 BI 75.1 “a great, wealthy town;” “into the desert.” 7 BI 89.4 “a great, powerful town in the middle of the desert.” 8 BI 75.5-6; 91.1-2. 9 BI 91.6 tells us that the troops received booty, and 97.1 may or may not imply that holding Capsa was of great value to Jugurtha. See Paul 1984 ad loc. for the view that Marius was making an attempt at effective terrorism. 35

decision to recount this particular expedition seem to have been motivated by comparison with Metellus.10 Once the comparison has been invited, the ring needs less overt reminders.

That the B-ring is less obvious than the C-ring is perhaps shown by the fact that

scholars have disagreed about which of Metellus’ expeditions constitutes his half. While

Büchner has claimed that Metellus’ battle at Zama filled this function, Thomas Scanlon

has argued more recently that Metellus’ siege at Vaga fills this function. Any confusion

is clearly the result of the fact that Sallust does not move so quickly with Metellus’ campaign as he does with Marius’. I would submit that perhaps a one to one comparison does not work so well here, simply because we only have three battles for Marius and at least five for Metellus. Thus when Marius undertakes a siege at a hill fort with a treasury, which Sallust describes as being close to the river Muluccha,11 he mirrors two

of Metellus’ attempts on Numidian towns, that on Zama and that on Vaga.

In all three instances, Metellus’ attempts at Zama and Vaga, and Marius’ attempt

at the Muluccha, Sallust describes a very similar scene. They are all somewhat disastrous for the Romans involved, and show very well the ferocity of the Numidians. The idea that Marius is undertaking a siege at all is reminiscent of the Zama and Vaga campaigns.

Sallust’s narration of the siege at Capsa focuses on the preparation involved and the surrounding desert rather than the town itself. At the Muluccha, however, Sallust’s story concerns the siege itself. In all three instances, the Romans are fighting a losing battle.

Thus Sallust speaks of Marius’ men at the Muluccha:

10 Cf. BI 92.3, where Sallust glosses over several other, presumably more useful expeditions. 11 BI 92.5, but see below. 36

Ea uineae cum ingenti periculo frustra agebantur, nam quom eae paulo processerant igni aut lapidibus corrumpebantur. (BI 92.8)

Mantelets were being moved with great danger and to no end, for when they had made a little progress forward, they kept falling to ruin by fire or rocks.

The scene shows the Romans unsuccessfully undertaking a siege, and falling to stones and fire thrown from the citadel. The scene is familiar from an incident at Zama.

Proelium incipitur. Romani, pro ingenio quoiusque, pars eminus glande aut lapidibus pugnare, alii succedere ac murum modo suffodere modo scalis adgredi, cupere proelium in manibus facere; contra ea oppidani in proxumos saxa voluere, sudis pila preterea picem sulphure et taeda mixtam ardentia mittere. (BI 57.4-5)

The battle began. Each according to his character, some of the Romans fought from a distance by missile or rocks, and others rushed right up and began here to dig under the wall and there to climb up it with a ladder, and they wanted to fight at close quarters; against this attack the townspeople threw rocks at those closest, and they hurled forth burning stakes and spears as well as pitch mixed with sulphur and torches.

And this is not the only instance of the Romans set on the losing end of an onslaught of projectiles. The uprising at Vaga involves the same horror.

Romani milites, inprouiso metu incerti ignarique quid potissumum facerent, trepidare. Arce oppidi, ubi signa et scuta erant, praesidium hostium, portae ante clausae fuga prohibebant; ad hoc mulieres puerique pro tectis aedificiorum saxa et alia quae locus praebebat certatim mittere. (BI 67.1)

The Roman soldiers, hesitant on account of a sudden fear and not knowing what they might do with the greatest effect, became alarmed. In the citadel of the town, where the standards and shields, the protection of the (Numidian) foe, were, gates already closed were prohibiting them from flight; on top of this, women and boys on the edge of the roof were eagerly hurling forth rocks and other things which their position supplied for them.

The citizens of Vaga rise against their Roman occupiers, as Sallust says, because the volgus, uti plerumque solet et maxume Numidarum, ingenio mobili, seditiosum atque

discordiosum erat, cupidum novarum rerum, quieti et otio aduorsum.12 Marius’ attempt

at the Muluccha recalls this scene also through a seemingly superfluous mention of

Numidian women and children,13 who have come out to watch. Although we don’t hear

about any participation on their part as we do with the above scene from Vaga, Sallust

states that they are the first to run inside when the Romans finally take the upper hand in

the battle near the Muluccha.

It is perhaps useful to mention here as well the manner in which the Romans do

get the upper hand at both Vaga and the Muluccha. While I will go into this in more

depth below, it suffices to say that in either instance the Roman general, Marius and

Metellus respectively, ends up winning in a morally somewhat dubious manner. Marius

wins his hill fortress by chance, and Metellus takes Vaga back by means of a trick. In

doing this each takes on the appearance of the Numidian both in his tactics and in the

actual physical appearance of his troops.14

Marius’ final battle constitutes his end of the A-ring, in which Sallust depicts each

general fighting in the open field. While Marius’ end of the A-ring is clear, Metellus’ is again more fluid. Both Thomas Scanlon and Karl Büchner cite chapters 48-54 as

Metellus’ end. Marius’ battle near Cirta contains verbal and pictorial reminders of

Metellus’ battle at the Muthul river. In either battle, the soldiers involved find themselves in mayhem, without any ordered battle. Chance has a strong hold over their fate. Thus when Marius’ men fight sine signis, sine ordinibus,15 they resemble Metellus’

12 BI 66.2 “the common crowd, as is usual for most and especially for one of Numidians, was with a shifting character, mutinous and contentious, desirous of revolution, and opposed to stability and leisure.” 13 BI 94.5. 14 BI 69.1; 94.1. 15 BI 51.1 “without standards and without ranks.” 38

troops who, neque signa neque ordines observare.16 The divisions between the soldiers

on foot and the cavalry melt away in both battles, so that Marius’ equites peditesque

permixti,17 just as Metellus’ equi viri…permixti.18 Marius’ men fight catervatim, uti

quosque fors conglobauerat,19 just as for Metellus’ men, fors omnia regere.20 Thomas

Scanlon observes these verbal parallels as indictments against the Romans in either

case,21 but I will argue differently.

The tactics of the battle show a distinct parallel as well. Both commanders show

a concern for a water source,22 both commanders are seen encouraging their troops who

have fallen into disorder, and night as well as hills has a strong role to play in either

battle.23 Sallust clearly writes Marius’ battle at Cirta as a parallel to Metellus’ battle at the Muthul.

The ring observed by Karl Büchner and Thomas Scanlon is compelling. Each

account of Marius’ battles recalls a battle of Metellus before it. While Scanlon has seen

all six of these instances as reflecting negatively upon the Romans involved, I would

offer the possibility that we are seeing something a bit more nuanced, and that the

separate commanders’ actions in their respective parallel situations do not necessarily

offer the same message. That Sallust has used a chiastic ring to organize his comparison

of either commander’s respective campaign does not preclude linear thematic

progression.

16 BI 97.5 “observed neither their standards nor their ranks.” 17 BI 97.5 “cavalry and infantry were intermingled.” 18 BI 51. “horses and men…were mixed.” 19 BI 97.4 “in mobs, as chance had grouped each together.” 20 BI 51.1 “chance ruled everything.” But Metellus’ reaction differs from Marius’ in a marked way. Metellus imposes order on the situation. 21 Scanlon 1988, 147f. 22 BI 50.1; 98.3. 23 BI 53.3; 98.3; 98.6. 39

Numidian Territory

The setting of the war in a third world—relatively untamed—Numidia and the

Roman interaction with that land become an important motif in Sallust’s monograph.

This motif can be illuminated by geographic and ethnographic tradition, in which asperitas becomes something that has an effect on those who dwell in a given area.

Recent discussions of Julius Caesar’s battle tactics in De Bello Gallico, furthermore, may

shed light on the subject as well. Andrew Riggsby has recently taken up a point of

discussion from Rambaud about different types of space in Caesar’s conception of the

geography of Gaul.24 In the De Bello Gallico, Riggsby claims, different sorts of activity

are appropriate in different types of space for different types of people. So while the

Gauls appear to move unimpeded through the mountains, marshes, these constitute

impediments for the Romans. Sallust’s use of African landscape appears similar to

Caesar’s in this respect.

Harshness appears repeatedly throughout the Bellum Iugurthinum as a sort of

theme. Sallust uses the harshness of the African terrain as a force constituting an impediment for the Romans and an aid for the Numidians. While this is, on one level, simply a reasonable factor in fighting a foreign versus a domestic war, Sallust exaggerates the concept into a literary device. It is not at all reasonable to suppose that in every instance the rough terrain actually helped the Numidians. They will presumably

24 Riggsby 2006, 24ff. 40

have found difficult land troublesome in many ways as well, if not to the extent that the

Romans did. Any depiction of harshness as a consistent aid to the Numidians, therefore, will be a literary device. We can see this in Sallust’s use of the word, asperitas, and in his discussion of other geographic features.

The use of asperitas in the Bellum Iugurthinum consistently favors the position of the Numidians and must be overcome by Romans. Sallust is very conscious of this problem, perhaps because of the time he spent as governor of Africa Nova.25 At the

beginning of his African excursus in which he sets forth the archaeology of the African

races, Sallust apologizes for the limitation the land puts on the extent of his knowledge.

Sed quae loca et nationes ob calorem aut asperitatem, item solitudines minus frequentata sunt, de iis haud facile conpertum narraverim. (BI 17.2)

But concerning those places and races as well as deserts which, on account of heat or harshness, are less frequented, I would not easily tell what is known.

Sallust presents the harshness of Africa as a factor barring his own undertaking to write

history. As he, the author of the monograph, is barred from certain parts of Africa in his

discussion, we are very open to the idea that the Roman army might have the same

problem in any attempt to regain or maintain the province. The apology seems

deliberate, moreover, in an account so riddled with gaps in narration,26 and reflects

Sallust’s use of a persona. And indeed asperitas is consistently to be overcome by the

Roman army throughout most of the monograph. It stops the Roman horses from giving

chase when the Numidians flee from the Muthul River.27 At Thala, the inhabitants of the

25 Syme 1964, 37. 26 Syme 1964, 147 for a discussion concerning selectivity in detail. 27 BI 50.6. 41

town believe themselves to be guarded asperitate,28 and Metellus indeed sets out to

overcome asperitates29 of the land. The inhabitants of Capsa are similarly muniti

aduorsum hostis non moenibus modo et armis atque uiris, uerum etiam multo magis

locorum asperitate.30 That the town’s defenses are prominently found in the natural

approach is clear not only from the rhetoric of the statement and the strong final position

of asperitate, but in the subsequent detail offered about the harshness of the approach to

Capsa.31 One Roman who does survive the asperitas of the revolt at Vaga unscathed, a

man by the name of Turpilius, is suspected of collusion and put to death.32 Asperitas, it

would appear, aids Iugurtha. It is perhaps relevant, finally, although the fragmentary

nature of Sallust’s largest work limits how much we might infer from it, that every

instance of the word, asperitas, occurring in Sallust’s existing work, with the exception

of one, occurs in the Bellum Iugurthinum. There may be at least an intimation that it is a

theme of this monograph. Every instance of the word pertains to something more

Numidian than Roman. Most, not all, of these instances of asperitas concern the terrain of Africa. Looking at the terrain and the way Romans and Numidians interact with it respectively, therefore, seems to be the best way to follow this motif.

Beyond this broad conception of harshness as Numidian aid and Roman

impediment, Sallust’s account more specifically sets up a difference in how Romans are

somewhat limited in their negotiations of the terrain in comparison to the freely roaming

Numidians. In his initial characterization of Jugurtha, Sallust paves the way for the idea.

28 BI 75.10. 29 BI 75.2. 30 BI 89.4, “guarded against their enemies not by walls and men at arms alone, but far more by the harshness of the place as well.” 31 BI 89.5 quoted below. 32 BI 67.3. 42

...sed, uti mos gentis illius est, equitare iaculari, cursu cum aequalibus certare, et quom omnis gloria antiret, omnibus tamen carus esse; (BI 6.1)

...but, as is the custom of that race, he rode, he threw, and he contended on the track with his age-mates, and, although he superceded all in glory, he was nevertheless dear to all;

The passage speaks of the noble beginning of Jugurtha’s career. D.C. Earl has argued convincingly that the phrase, “uti mos gentis illius est,” indicates that Iugurtha is the

Numidian equivalent to a Roman youth outstanding in the courts or politics.33 Jugurtha obtains gloria through virtus in the manner of a Numidian. For now, however, I only point it out to demonstrate that the Numidian youth is supposed to engage the land in his mastery of very physical activities. Riding, throwing, and running, moreover, are what we see the Numidians doing the most in battle. Sallust reveals Jugurtha’s intimacy with

the land throughout the work with phrases like, “ipse quasi vitabundus per saltuosa loca et tramites exercitum ductare.”34 Like Caesar’s Gauls in De Bello Gallico, the

Numidians will seem to be able to move freely where Metellus’ men find themselves

barred or at least slowed. A close look at Roman interaction with the landscape

throughout these campaigns reveals that Metellus finds it much more difficult to

assimilate to this landscape than Marius does. While the reflective structure of the ring

has been demonstrated, there also appears a parallel process undergone by each

commander as he appears to take on an increasingly Numidian appearance. Marius’

superior ability to assimilate to the African landscape has been observed as the result of a

closer similitude to Jugurtha, and it has been argued that a major point of the Jugurtha is

that, while Rome may have won the war, Jugurtha’s depraved morality ended up taking

33 Earl 1961, 62 34 BI 38.1 “he led his army through wooded areas and foot trails as if he were attempting to evade (them).” 43

over Rome.35 I would suggest that the campaigns of Metellus and, perhaps more

importantly, Marius reflect this theme. In either case, the generals take on qualities of the

Numidians as they continue to interact with them. In other words, each commander begins to mimic Jugurtha, though to different degrees and in different ways. Sallust’s

construction of this is intimately bound up with his selective deployment of interaction

with the Numidian landscape.

Battle Narratives: Metellus

In the first confrontation between Jugurtha and Metellus, Sallust provides an in

depth description of the natura loci, where Jugurtha has set up an ambush.

Erat in ea parte Numidiae quam Adherbal in diuisione possederat flumen oriens a meridie nomine Muthul, a quo aberat mons ferme milia viginti tractu pari, uastus ab natura et humano cultu. Sed ex eo medio quasi collis oriebatur, in inmensum pertingens, vestitus oleastro ac murtetis aliisque generibus arborum quae humi arido atque harenoso gignuntur. Media autem planities deserta penuria aquae praeter flumini propinqua loca; ea consita arbustis pecore atque cultoribus frequentabantur. (BI 48.3-4)

There was in that part of Numidia of which Adherbal had gained control in the distribution a river with its source to the south by the name of Muthul, from which there was a mountain almost twenty thousand paces away as the crow flies, huge by nature and human design. In between (the river and the mountain) grew a sort of hill of great extent, dressed in oleander and myrtle and other types of trees which grow on dry and sandy ground. But the middle of the plain was deserted due to the lack of water outside of the places next to the river; sprinkled with trees, these were thick with cattle and farmers.

Metellus will come off the mountains running perpendicular to that on which Jugurtha’s

army sits. He will then approach the Muthul River, finding himself in a river valley,

looking up at Jugurtha’s army and surrounded by hills and the Muthul River. The hills

35 Kraus 1997, 22. 44

and the river constitute the boundaries of the battle taking place on the plain. Andrew

Riggsby has recently discussed the difference in role between a collis and a mons in

Caesar’s De Bello Gallico. As he shows, Caesar uses collis to describe something that stands within what he calls “tactical space,” space which allows a battle line to form, and mons to describe something constituting a boundary.36 The term mons seems to have a

similar function in the Bellum Iugurthinum. The above passage in fact uses this term to draw one of the borders for the battle field. A similar delineation comes into play when

Sallust describes the establishment of two neighboring cities later on for which “neque flumen neque mons erat qui finis eorum discerneret.”37 Sallust is explicit that he looks

for a mountain to form boundaries. The other possible boundary missing from these two

cities is a river. It would appear, therefore, that he conceives of rivers as boundaries.

And thus the Muthul works as a boundary for the plain here. Although Metellus is seen

coming from the mountain,38 he does not violate his space limitation as a Roman. It is

not that Romans can not pass these boundaries, but that they are unable to operate

effectively within them. The quasi collis is outlined only on three sides by the river, the

mountain, and the plain. As the fourth direction is undefined, the feature serves as a

border to the tactical space of the battle. But it is also whence the Numidians come. I

would suggest that this is the point of the phrase, in inmensum.39 What Sallust has done,

therefore, is to outline a planities using a river, hills, and mountains. The boundaries are

only boundaries for Romans, however, as the Numidians seem to disregard them

altogether. Thus Iugurtha in spem victoriae adductus ex opportunitate loci, quam

36 Riggsby 2006, 40 along with bibliography. 37 BI 79.3, “neither was there a river nor a mountain which might determine their boundaries.” 38 BI 49.6. 39 This phrase will come up again for the same purpose. 45

maxumas potest copias omnium generum parat ac per tramites occultos exercitum

Metelli antevenit.40 Although we never see how Metellus gets to the site—Sallust’s

setting for the incident appears to be loosely defined as while on the march through the

country side—one gets the impression that Jugurtha took some shortcut not open to

Metellus. Jugurtha has been travelling on hidden paths in expectation of victory by the

opportunitate loci, a phrase which will come up repeatedly. Thus the hills and river

themselves become Numidian agents in Jugurtha’s trap, since they stand as borders for

Metellus, and not for Jugurtha.41

Metellus’ initial perception of his predicament is illuminating.

Primo dubius quidnam insolita facies ostenderet—nam inter virgulta equi Numidaeque consederant, neque plane occultati humilitate arborum et tamen incerti quidnam esset, cum natura loci tum dolo ipsi atque signa militaria obscurati… (BI 49.5)

At first he was doubtful of what the unusual appearance showed—for the horses and the Numidians were posted among the trees, and though not entirely hidden because of the lowness of the trees, they were still not fully discernible as to what they were. Both because of the nature of the place and the trick itself the military standards were hidden…

Metellus does not recognize an army of Numidians, but an insolita facies. Sallust

presents us with a picture of the situation from the perspective of the Roman army. The

Numidians do not appear as an entity on a landscape, but rather as a part of that

landscape. The Numidians and their horses are interwoven with trees. Horses take on as

great a role as the Numidians themselves, perhaps intimating their similitude to beasts.42

Their identity as an army, furthermore, is mitigated by hidden standards. Thus we get an

40 BI 48.2, “led to hope of victory by the advantage of the site, prepared as great a force as he was able composed of all sorts and cut off the army of Metellus by means of hidden foot trails.” 41 Kraus 1997, 22 for a discussion of Jugurtha’s ghostlike movement throughout Numidia. 42 BC 1.2; Morstein-Marx 2001, 181. 46

idea as to how Jugurtha’s relationship with the landscape works. If this is not entirely clear, Metellus’ reaction is perhaps more important.

Sed ubi Numidas quietos neque colle degredi animadvortit, veritus ex anni tempore et inopia aquae, ne siti conficeretur exercitus, Rutilium legatum cum expediis cohortibus et parte equitum praemisit ad flumen, uti locum castris antecaperet, existumans hositis crebro impetu et transvorsis proeliis iter suum remoraturos, et quoniam armis diffiderent, lassitudenem et sitim militum temptaturos. (BI 50.1)

But when he realized that the Numidians were quiet and not coming down the hill, afraid because of the time of year and lack of water lest his army be overcome by thirst, he sent Rutilius as a lieutenant with armed cohorts and part of the cavalry to the river, so that he might take in advance a place for a camp, judging that his enemies would stay his journey with frequent attacks and battles on his flank, and since they did not put faith in arms, that they would try the soldiers’ fatigue and thirst.

Metellus’ reaction exhibits concern for his situation, though not a lot of it is directed

toward Jugurtha himself. He first perceives that the Numidians themselves are at rest.

He then fears the time of the year and the lack of water, that his army will be overcome by thirst. Indicating his primary concern, therefore, Metellus divides an already

outnumbered army occupying the low position in order to secure the river, fearing that

the Numidians will try to use thirst and exhaustion to defeat the Romans. The Numidians

seem to take a secondary role as merely a component of the land against which Metellus

has pitted himself. Sallust thus reveals Metellus’ discord with his surroundings.

Jugurtha eventually sends a detachment under Bomilcar to take on the Roman

camp under the watch of Rutulius.

Romani ex improviso pulveris vim magnam animadvortunt; nam prospectum ager arbustis consitus prohibebat. Et primo rati humum aridam vento agitari, post ubi aequabilem manere, et sicuti acies movebatur, magis magisque appropinquare vident, cognita re properantes arma capiunt ac pro castris, sicuti imperabatur, consistunt. Deinde, ubi propius ventum est, utrimque magno clamore concurritur. (BI 53.1-2) 47

The Romans all of the sudden became aware of a large cloud of dust; for the field was preventing a view since it was full of bushes. And at first they thought that dry dirt was being blown by the wind, but after they saw that it stayed constant, as if a line was being moved, that it was approaching more and more, they took up arms with the truth discovered, and took up positions in defense of the camp as they were being ordered. Then, when it came closer, both met with a loud shout.

The Roman camp does not initially perceive an oncoming army, but a pulueris uis approaching. Where Metellus feared the tempus anni, Rutulius is attacked by a pulueris uis. In both instances, Sallust plays on terms from the prologue, using them in slightly different ways than he originally did. The opening of the Jugurtha reads thus:

Falso queritur de natura sua genus humanum, quod inbecilla atque aeui breuis forte potius quam uirtute regatur. Nam contra reputando neque maius aliud neque praestabilius inuenias magisque naturae industriam hominum quam uim aut tempus deesse. (BI 1-2)

Wrongly does the human race complain about its own nature on the grounds that being weak and with a short life it is ruled by chance more than by uirtus. For rather, through reflection you would find that nothing else is greater or more outstanding and that it is more characteristic of its nature that diligence is missing rather than capacity or occasion.

Thus we see that the natura humanum enjoys an abundance of uis and tempus. By depicting Rutilius fighting the uis and tempus of the natura loci, Sallust depicts the land as a Numidian agent. The natural imagery continues as the Romans believe that the pulveris uis is being moved by the wind. But even after they realize their mistake, Sallust uses the impersonal perfect, uentum, which very closely resembles the word previously used for “wind” (uento), in order to depict the onslaught of the now recognized Numidian detachment. Ubi proprius uentum est, could almost mean, “when the wind is closer.”

The homophonic nature of the two words seems to keep alive the imagery of a hyper- active natural surrounding which is decidedly hostile to the Romans under Metellus. The

impersonal also works to deemphasize that both lines—people—are approaching each other, although this is a common form of expression in Sallust’s work.

As the battle concludes, nature dictates Numidian action.

Numidae tantum modo remorati, dum in elephantis auxilium putant, postquam eos impeditos ramis arborum atque ita disiectos circumeniri vident, fugam faciunt ac plerique abiectis armis collis aut noctis, quae iam aderat, auxilio integri abeunt. Elephanti quattuor capti, reliqui omnes numero quadraginta interfecti. (BI 53.3- 4)

The Numidians only held their ground so much while they thought that the elephants stood as a back-up. After they saw them hindered by the branches of trees and that they were surrounded, thrown thus, they fled and most got away unhurt with arms discarded and with the help of the hill or the night. Four elephants were captured, and all remaining, forty in number, were killed.

First, the Numidians fight while they have the elephants, but are disheartened when they perceive the elephants impeded by the trees. The Numidians have, as it were, lost an ally without whom they will not fight. The term, auxilium, is used of an auxiliary detachment or deployment of troops in an army. As beasts, elephants are a function of the African wild. Sallust’s description weaves the animals into the Numidian army, thus linking the

Africans to the African landscape. Hills and the night, both of which will be used repeatedly in Numidian escapes and attacks, facilitate their escape. The natura loci dictates the entire battle on the Numidian front from start to finish, and even facilitates their escape following the battle, since the Romans find themselves unable to follow.

Sallust mentions forty casualties and four prisoners, all of which are elephants. Again, the focus on elephants makes them an integral part of the Numidian army, and highlights the priority of the landscape from a Roman perspective. Metellus is overcoming his environment.

Following this, the detachment under Rutilius and the rest of the army under

Metellus meet in a near disaster.

Ac primo obscura nocte, postquam haud procul inter se erant, strepitu velut hostes [adventare] alteri apud alteros formidinem simul et tumultum facere; et paene inprudentia admissum facinus miserabile, ni utrimque praemissi equites rem explorauissent. (BI 53.7)

And at first, on account of the dark night, once they were not far from each other, each [began to approach] in the manner of an enemy and produced fear and tumult in the other group; and a pitiable act was almost allowed to happen unintentionally, except that horsemen sent forth from each side investigated the situation.

While Scanlon has read this as a criticism of Romans who celebrate victory too quickly and almost pay for it, I find something quite different. Immediately after we have seen the night aiding the Numidians in their escape, we see that it presents a problem for the

Romans. Scanlon makes too much of the near disaster. Sallust’s point, as I take it, is not that the Romans almost acted foolishly in the night, but rather that the night which hides things from view, while a benefit for the Numidians, is something to be overcome for

Metellus’ army. This aspect of the night is important, and will come up again in the final confrontation between Marius and the Numidians.

A bit later a town under Roman control, Vaga, decides to revolt.43 Metellus is

furious when he finds out.44 He sets out to march at night.

Legionem cum qua hiemabat et quam plurumos potest Numidas equites pariter cum occasu solis expeditos educit et postero die circiter hora tertia peruenit in quandam planitiem locis paulo superioribus circumuentam. (BI 68.1)

He led out the legion with which he was wintering and as many Numidian horsemen as he was able to get unimpeded by baggage at sunset, and on the next day around the third hour arrived in a certain plain surrounded by slightly higher ground.

43 BI 65. 44 BI 68. 50

Metellus leaves at night, which seems a bit Numidian given the scene we have just been shown. It is important to notice, however, that he arrives in a plain surrounded by hills.

His operation remains within the boundaries of space permitted to Romans. On Marius’ side of the B-ring, Sallust will allow Marius to break these boundaries as the Numidians do. Metellus, however, remains restricted to the fields. But although Metellus does not break this boundary, he is taking on aspects of Jugurtha.

Sic animis eorum adrectis equites in primo late, pedites quam artissume ire et signa occultare iube. Vagenses, ubi animum advortere ad se vorsum exercitum pergere, primo, uti erat res Metellum esse rati portas clausere; deinde, ubi neque agros vastari et eos qui primi aderant Numidas equites vident, rursum Iugurtham arbitrati cum magno gaudio obuii procedunt. (BI 68.4-69.1)

After encouraging them thus he ordered the cavalry to go in front and the soldiers on foot to go as tightly packed as possible and hide their standards. The people of Vaga, when it came to their attention that an army was marching in their direction, at first, as the matter stood, thinking it was Metellus, began to close the gates; then, when they saw that the fields were not laid to waste and that those in the front were Numidian cavalry, they judged rather that it was Jugurtha and came forth to meet him with great joy.

Hiding the standards is a Numidian trick. Metellus, in his eagerness to take revenge on

Vaga, has resorted to Jugurtha’s tactics in their previous encounter. If this doesn’t appear

Numidian enough for the reader, Sallust offers the Vagensian perspective from which the physical appearance of Metellus’ army is that of a Numidian army. This phenomenon will repeat meaningfully in Marius’ end of the B-ring.

The use of such trickery recalls what the Jugurtha was attempting to accomplish at the Muthul River. Thus Sallust portrays Metellus taking on a Numidian gambit which, in turn, involves taking on a Numidian appearance. It has been argued that the use of dolus indicates ambitio and sits antithetically to virtus.45

45 Earl 1961, Ch. 1. 51

Sallust resumes a more marked use of natural imagery when Jugurtha holes up in

Thala after going in solitudines.46 Solitudo appears to be one of those words like

asperitas. Every instance of solitudo in Sallust’s extant corpus appears in the Bellum

Iugurthinum. Solitudo generally47 indicates somewhere Jugurtha goes to escape and

avoid Romans. It also was listed as a condition which Sallust was unable to penetrate.

Metellus’ point of view is relevant.

Quae postquam Metello comperta sunt, quamquam inter Thalam flumenque proxumum in spatio milium quinquaginta loca arida atque vasta esse cognoverat, tamen spe patrandi belli si eius oppidi potitus foret, omnis asperitates supervadre ac naturam etiam vincere aggreditur. (BI 75.2)

As soon as Metellus learned of this, although he knew that between Thala and the nearest river lay fifty miles of dry and desolate country, yet in hope of ending the war by getting possession of so important a town he undertook to surmount all the difficulties and even to defeat Nature herself.

Sallust writes this as if any interaction with the Numidian himself is a guarantee of

Roman victory. It is the desolate country surrounding Thala that is the first line of

defense, and thirst is his primary concern. Furthermore, the final words of the sentence

redefine Metellus’ enemy as nature and not necessarily the Numidians themselves, at

least in a way that is of any concern to the Romans. Again, the perceived inconsequence

of the Numidians reveals itself in Metellus’ primary concern with the environment.

There is an interesting turn in the narrative here, however. When Metellus reaches the place appointed for his camp, a great rain comes to his aid.

Deinde ubi ad id loci ventum quo Numidis praeceperat et castra posita munitaque sunt tanta repente caelo missa vis aquae dicitur, ut ea modo exercitui satis superque foret. (BI 75.7)

46 BI 75.1. 47 At BI 93.3 it is used when describing the location of a Ligurian in the Roman army, but that will be a relevant change. 52

Then, after they arrived at that place whither they had told the Numidians (to go) and set up and fortified the camp, such a force of rain is said to have been sent suddenly from the sky, that it was enough for the army and then some.

The rain seems like a superfluous detail, unless we take into account the shift in Metellus’

position with his surroundings. While he has indeed prepared for the expected shortage

of water and set out to conquer nature herself, he ends finding her favorable. Thus

Sallust depicts a situation in which Metellus has prepared for the adverse and come

across the favorable. Up to this point in the narrative, the word, solitudo, has appeared four times.48 The first time Sallust marked it as a place Romans could not enter.

Otherwise it was used of a place to which Jugurtha fled in desperation. The narrative at

Thala marks the first time a Roman enters such a place. While Sallust dramatizes

Metellus’ apprehension at entering this desert,49 Metellus has a windfall, a uis aquae. So

if Metellus has not gained the Numidian comfort with the land, he has clearly found a blessing in it.

Battle Narratives: Marius

Marius’ campaign has spurred a lot of discussion concerning whether or not

Sallust’s depiction of him is favorable. While he is clearly portrayed as an outstanding

talent and a strong leader and soldier to begin with, it has generally been agreed that

Sallust’s final depiction of Marius is negative. The passage which most clearly supports

this opinion is Sallust’s initial characterization of Marius during Metellus’ campaign.

Per idem tempus Vticae forte C. Mario per hostias dis supplicanti magna atque mirabilia portendi haruspex dixerat: proinde quae animo agitabat fretus dis

48 BI 17.2;55.1;74.1;75.1. 49 BI 75. 53

ageret, fortunam quam saepissume experiretur; cuncta prospere eventura. At illum iam antea consulatus ingens cupido exagitabat, ad quem capiundum praeter uetustatem familiae alia omnia abunde erant: industria, probitas, militiae magna scientia, animus belli ingens domi modicus, lubidinis et diuitiarum uictor, tantummodo gloriae auidus. (BI 63.1-2)

At the same time, by chance while Gaius Marius was supplicating the gods with animal sacrifices, a haruspex had said that great and wonderful things were foretold: therefore that he should do with his trust in the gods those things on which he had his mind set, and that he would enjoy the favor of fortune quite often; everything would turn out well. But already before that time a great desire for the consulship was nagging him, for the attainment of which he had in abundance all other qualifications outside of the age of his family: industry, worth, great knowledge of war, a mind great in war and moderate at home, the master over his desire and the allure of riches, only for glory was he greedy.

Sallust has filled this passage, the first introduction to Marius’ character, with key words and phrases indicating his moral makeup. The horuspex has given a reading that is ominous in Sallust’s terms. Sallust clearly states that fortuna is not needed for one who pursues uirtus. Thus Sallust:

Sed dux atque imperator uitae mortalium animus est; qui, ubi ad gloriam uirtutis via grassatur, abunde pollens potensque et clarus est neque fortuna eget, quippe quae probitatem, industriam aliasque artis bonas neque dare neque eripere quoiquam potest. (BI 1.3)

But the guide and commander of the life of mortals is the mind which, when it proceeds to glory down the road of virtue, is very strong and capable as well as brilliant and does not need fortune, of course, which is able neither to give to nor take away from anyone uprightness, diligence, or any other good practice.

While Sallust’s prologue by no means states that fortuna and uirtus are mutually exclusive, it most certainly puts a tension between the two ideas. Thus Marius’ blessing with fortuna and his endowment of industria and probitas create a tension within Marius’ character. He could go either way. Sallust does not leave us in suspense for too long.

Tamen is ad id locorum talis uir—nam postea ambitione praeceps datus est— consulatum adpetere non audebat… (BI 63.5)

But this man of such a quality at this time—for afterward he fell headlong in ambition—still did not dare to seek the consulship…

In a parenthetical statement, Sallust has slipped in a rather large piece of information. It seems almost anticlimactic after the tension drawn out in the previous section. In any case, he has clearly not portrayed Marius as a bad man, but as an outstanding man gone wrong in a particular sense. As D.C. Earl has argued, ambitio stands in opposition to uirtus.50 Marius’ behavior in his campaign, I would suggest, is in part the story of him

going wrong. Thus, as reality represents a baser imitation of Sallust’s mythical account

in his Leptis digression, Marius’ actions represent a baser perversion of his initially good

characterization. Along with this deterioration, Marius begins to imitate Jugurtha and his

Numidians in how he engages the land.

Capsa presents a curious debut for Marius’ campaign in the Jugurtha. Just as

with Thala, the approach is the most difficult challenge for Marius. This time, however,

it is more difficult.

…muniti advorsum hostis non moenibus modo et armis atque uiris, uerum etiam multo magis locorum asperitate. Nam praeter oppido proprinqua alia omnia uasta, inculta, egentia aquae, infesta serpentibus, quarum uis sicuti omnium ferarum inopia cibi acrior; ad hoc natura serpentium ipsa perniciosa siti magis quam alia re adcenditur. (BI 89.4-5)

[they were] defended against enemies not only by walls and armed men, but even more by the harshness of the place. For all other places outside the vicinity of the town were desolate, uncultivated, lacking water, full of snakes whose venom just as that of all wild beasts was all the more potent due to lack of food; on top of this the nature of the serpents, dangerous in itself, is inflamed by thirst more than anything else.

Sallust’s detail on the asperitas of the approach to Capsa indicates where his focus lies.

This detail has been explained away simply by the supposition that Sallust obtained this

50 Earl 1961, 28ff. 55

information through personal inquiry.51 Any information about his method, however,

provides no explanation as to why he includes such a detail. Its inclusion in a narrative so

filled with gaps is a very deliberate decision. Sallust dramatically puts his reader in the

Roman predicament, offering him a chance to experience the difficulties of the approach

along with Marius and his men. We will encounter venomous snakes, whose bite is

worse on account of the lack of water. Notice the odd amount of detail on the uis

serpentium. Metellus was blessed by a uis aquae on his way to Thala, and Rutilius’ men

were, so they thought, approached by a pulueris uis. Human nature, as Sallust puts it, is

associated with uis and tempus. Sallust talks about the natura loci in a somewhat similar

fashion as he does about the natura hominum. Marius’ concern with the lack of water

will be dramatized as well.

Ceterum in itinere cotidie pecus exercitui per centurias, item turmas aequaliter distribuerat, et ex coriis utres uti fierent curabat:simul inopiam frumenti lenire et ignaris omnibus parare quae mox usui forent. (BI 91.1)

But on the journey he had distributed to the army a cow for each company daily, and an equal amount for each band, and he would then take care to see that water bottles should be made from their hides: at the same time he was making up for the lack of grain and outfitting for everyone, even while they remained ignorant, those sorts of things which would soon be of use.

The preparations are not especially remarkable except for the fact that Sallust actually

writes about them. Marius is seen taking steps to overcome the land. On the one hand,

this helps to draw up the compositional ring. But it also has the effect of making Marius and his men conspicuously alien to the land. The resulting discordance requires quite a bit of planning on Marius’ part even to make the undertaking possible. While the

Numidians cross the countryside without any extraordinary preparation, Marius’ measures are noteworthy. Although Marius is overcoming an overtly hostile landscape,

51 Paul 1984, ad loc. 56

however, we must remember that he is entering ingentis solitudines. That Marius is pitted against circumstance, moreover, Sallust undercuts simultaneously as he expresses it.

There are a few lines which make this reading of the scene at Capsa somewhat difficult. From the outset of his preparations, Sallust brings up Marius’ ominous connection with fortuna.

Igitur consul omnibus exploratis, credo dis fretus, nam contra tantas difficultates consilio satis prouidere non poterat… (BI 90.1)

Therefore the consul, after investigating everything—I believe with his faith in the gods, for against such adversity it was not possible to take enough precautions by planning—...

It could be argued that this passage indicates to the reader that Marius was relying on chance for his success. The relatively long account of all his preparations, however, indicates otherwise.52 The sentence does not do away with the preparation following it, but it does cast a shadow on all of it. This is exactly what happened in Sallust’s initial characterization of Marius. He seems to avoid saying anything unequivocally in favor of

Marius. The other passage frequently brought up, saying that, omnia non bene consulta in virtutem trahebantur,53 takes place after the Capsa narrative, and needs to be read as

inceptive from that point.54 If Sallust’s representation of Marius is a bit elusive here, this is not the case with what follows.

Following his success at Capsa, Marius decides to attack a hill fort, since it is a

treasury of Iugurtha.

52 Gilbert 1973, 104. 53 BI 92.2 “Everything not well planned began to be taken as virtus.” 54 Thus Gilbert. Paul ad loc., Avery 1967, 326, and Scanlon 1993, 159 among others, understand that omnia includes Capsa, but this is incorrect. The sentence is in a passage discussing the effects of Capsa, and follows a sentence whose main verb is the perfect coepit. Thus it should be read, “After Marius achieved so great a deed without any detriment to his own men, he, great and brilliant already, began to be considered greater and more brilliant. All things not well planned began to be taken as virtus.” 57

Namque haud longe flumine Muluccha, quod Iugthae Bocchique regnum diiungebat, erat inter ceteram planitiem mons saxeus, mediocri castello satis patens, in inmensum editus, uno perangusto aditu relicto; nam omnis natura uelut opere atque consulto praeceps. (BI 92.5)

For not long from the river, Muluccha, which divided the kingdoms of Jugurtha and Bocchus, there was a rocky mountain in the midst of what was otherwise a field, open enough for a moderate fort, rising up immeasurably, with one narrow approach left open; for its nature was entirely steep as if by plan and artifice.

If the campaigns at Thala and Capsa seemed to lack the sort of clear physical boundaries which we saw at the Muthul River, the attack on this hill-fort takes it up again. This time, however, we are in the midst of a plain, and the fort itself is on the rocky mountain, which “rises immeasurably.” All of these features of land have limited access for the

Romans in the past. And they have been boundaries in Sallust’s conception of the terrain. Furthermore, this idea of a boundary is stressed by the location of the fort, which is “not far from the Muluccha river, which divided the kingdom of Jugurtha from that of

Bocchus.” Paul notes at this point that there is a somewhat egregious omission of the long march Marius would have to achieve in order to get here from Capsa.55 While the

motivation for leaving something out of a narrative is difficult to determine at times, this

could be a pregnant silence. While the reader was along for the ride when Metellus

marched on Vaga on his end of the B-ring, the details of Marius’ movements, like the

Numidian’s, are unknown to us. This seems strange when reading about a man with

whom we have just been able to empathize while he was marching out to Capsa. Perhaps

Marius is becoming more like them. If this seems tenuous, the device becomes more

overt.

55 Paul 1984, ad loc.; See also Syme 1964, 147-8 for the conclusion that Sallust has his geography mixed up. 58

When siege machines won’t work due to the terrain,56 Marius is stuck. He can

not decide omitteretne inceptum, quoniam frustra erat, an fortunam opperiretur, qua

saepe prospere usus fuerat.57 His perceived options, giving up and relying on fortune,

remind us of Sallust’s ominous initial characterization of him: a good man who might go

wrong. He gets lucky as he debates this, however.

Quae quom multos dies noctisque aestuans agitaret, forte quidam Ligus, ex cohortibus auxiliariis miles gregarius, castris aquatum egressus, haud procul ab latere castelli quod aduorsum proeliantibus erat animum aduortit inter saxa repentis cocleas; quarum quom unam atque alteram dein plures peteret, studio legundi paulatim prope ad summum montis egressus est…Et forte in eo loco grandis ilex coaluerat inter saxa, paulum modo prona, deinde inflexa atque aucta in altitudinem, quo cuncta gignentium natura fert. Quoius ramis modo, modo eminentibus saxis nisus Ligus in castelli planitiem peruenit, quod cuncti Numidae intenti proeliantibus aderant. (BI 93.2-4)

When he was rolling these things about in his mind, hesitating for several days and nights, by chance a certain Ligurian, an outstanding soldier from the auxiliary cohorts, when he had left the camp to fetch water, caught sight of some snails crawling amongst the rocks on the side of the fort which was opposite to where people were fighting; when he sought one and another and then more of these, on account of his delight in collecting them he went little by little nearly to the top of the mountain...And by chance in that place there grew a great oak tree amidst the rocks, sloping just for a bit, and then bending and growing straight up, in the direction which all nature of growing things directs. After making his way by means of a branch of this tree here and a protruding rock there, the Ligurian arrived at the plain of the fort, since all the Numidians present were focused on those (Romans) fighting.

Six times in this passage Sallust refers to this unnamed soldier as a Ligurian. The fact

that he is Ligurian could possibly stress the role which chance had to play in the

discovery of the back path.58 The tree, moreover, grows forte in that area, and it grows in

accordance with the way nature has all things grow. Sallust pronounces the union of the natura of the land and chance. Finally the Ligurian arrives at the plain on top. The

56 BI 92.7-9. 57 BI 93.1, “whether he should abandon his undertaking, since it was in vain, or rely on fortune, by which he was used to succeeding often.” 58 Paul 1984, ad loc. 59

Ligurian has crossed from the plain below, up the mons, to the plain above. Not only does he pass the mons, he operates on it, and we see him do so. After he goes to tell

Marius what he has found, Marius orders him to lead a party up the back path, perhaps reminiscent of the tramites occulti used by Jugurtha.

Ceterum illi qui escensuri erant, praedocti ab duce arma ornatumque mutauerant: capite atque pedibus nudis, uti prospectus nisusque per saxa facilius foret; super terga gladii et scuta, uerum ea Numidica ex coriis, ponderis gratia simul et offensa quo leuius streperent. Igitur praegrediens Ligus saxa et si quae uetustate radices eminebant laqueis uinciebat, quibus adleuati milites facilius escenderent; interdum timidos insolentia itineris leuare manu, ubi paulo asperior ascensus erat singulos prae se inermos mittere, deinde ipse cum illorum armis sequi, quae dubia nisui uidebantur potissumus temptare ac saepius eadem ascendens descendensque, dein statim digrediens ceteris audaciam addere. (BI 94.2-3)

But those who were about to make their ascent had changed out their arms and equipment as their general had instructed: they bared their head and feet, so that it might be easier to see and make there way along the rocks; their swords and shields were on their backs, but these shields were Numidian shields made from animal hides in consideration of weight and at the same time so that they would make less noise when being knocked about. Accordingly the Ligurian, going first, if any roots were protruding because of the tree’s age, would tie a rope on them, so that, lifting themselves on it, the soldiers might more easily make their ascent; meanwhile he would ease the novelty of the trip for the timid by lending a hand, when the ascent was harsher he would send them up individually in front of him, and then he himself would follow with their arms, and those parts which seemed most dangerous for passage he would most ably attempt and often go up and down the same section, and then immediately departing from the others he augmented their courage.

Sallust depicts a metamorphosis of Roman soldiers. Their leader is a Ligurian, an ethnographically tough stock from a rough part of Italy.59 The terrain of the mons forces

the soldiers to take off the clothes and armor on their heads and feet. They put their

swords and shields over their backs. Most alarmingly they exchange their shields for

Numidian shields. Sallust provides a picture of a bare footed soldier without a helmet

whose back is covered by a Numidian shield scaling up a mountain. These Romans

59 Diod. Sic. 5.39. 60

appear Numidian. The Ligurian, furthermore, trains them to behave like a Numidian.

While the Roman soldier’s appropriate mode of movement is the battle line, which

Metellus took such great pains to keep formed at the Muthul, Marius’ men are deliberately learning another mode of movement, one which will allow them to travel the land freely like the Numidian does. Diodorus of Sicily characterizes the Ligurians as people who endure labor, do not harvest their land, and live as beasts.60 Ligurians

perhaps resemble the Numidians. After recounting the transformation of the Roman

detachment under the Ligurian, Sallust returns to the front of the battle, where Marius is

still pressing the siege.

In a marked comment Sallust stresses the Romans’ transformation by giving the

Numidians a momentarily Roman aspect.

At Numidae, saepe antea uineis Romanorum subuorsis, item incensis, non castelli moenibus sese tutabantur, sed pro muro dies noctisque agitare, militibus nostris Iugurthae seruitium minari, secundis rebus feroces esse. Interim omnibus, Romanis hostibusque, proelio intentis magna utrimque ui pro gloria atque imperio his, illis pro salute certantibus, repente a tergo signa canere; (BI 94.4- 5)

But the Numidians, since they had often destroyed Roman mantlets before, and likewise burned them, did not seek safety within the walls of the fortress, but rather they would stand in front of the wall shouting insults, threatening servitude under Jugurtha, and being fierce while the situation was going their way. Meanwhile as everyone, Romans and their enemies alike, focused in the battle with great violence, the latter contending for glory and supremacy, the former for their lives, suddenly there came a signal from the back.

Some have wanted to understand the final sentence as identifying Romans with “his” and

Numidians with “illis.” This is problematic for a few reasons. First, it is not

grammatically probable, since the demonstrative, hic, usually refers to the more recently

60 Diodorus Siculus 5.39; cf BC 1.2. 61

stated noun.61 Second, the preceding sentence makes it clear that the Romans have the worst of the battle at this point. The sentence is out of place unless we understand it the other way around, that the Romans are fighting for their lives and the Numidians are fighting for gloria and imperium. The desire to understand his as Romans and illis as

Numidians is nevertheless understandable: the Numidians are clearly not fighting for imperium. I would suggest that Sallust does not intend us to think that they are. Rather, he stresses the transformation of the Romans by reversing the roles of the Numidian and the Roman. To show how Numidian the Roman is, Sallust shows how comparatively

Roman the Numidian is. The device does not persist beyond this point. While the

Numidians have had the upper hand to this point in the battle, they are helpless against the flanking maneuvre. The Romans rout them.

Quod ubi adcidit, eo acrius Romani instare, fundere ac plerosque tantummodo sauciare, dein super occisorum corpora uadere, auidi gloriae certantes murum petere, neque quemquam omnium praeda morari. (BI 94.6)

But when this happened, the Romans bore down all the more fiercely; they put them to flight and most they merely wounded, and then they went over the bodies of the slain, as they were greedy for glory, in an effort to attack the wall, and preoccupation with booty did not detain a single one of them.

The Romans are displaying valor, which, according to Sallust, was instrumental in

Rome’s original expansion. Thus the Catiline:

Igitur talibus uiris non labor insolitus, non locus ullus asper aut arduos erat, non armatus holtis formidulosus: uirtus omnia domuerat. Sed gloriae maxumum certamen inter ipsos erat: se quisque hostem ferire, murum ascendere, conspici dum tale facinus faceret properabat; eas diuitias, eam bonam famam magnamque nobilitatem putabant. (BC 7.5-6)

But the competition for glory was the greatest among them: each hastened to strike the enemy, climb the wall, and to be seen while doing such a deed; they

61 Kühner 1982, II.1, 622-3 gives the full story. 62

held this to be wealth, this to earn them a good reputation, and this to be great nobility.

Marius’ troops are returning to old Roman ruggedness. More exactly, they appear to return to Roman virtus.62 Here the theme of asperitas is brought to bear. In penetrating

regions closed off to them previously in the war, the Romans are returning to the

character which made Rome great in the beginning. In the dynamic fashion typical of

Sallust, however, after praising Marius’ troops he immediately indicts Marius himself.

Sic forte correcta Mari temeritas gloriam ex culpa inuenit. (BI 94.7)

Thus Marius’ boldness was corrected by chance, and he hit upon glory by his mistake.

Sallust’s evaluation of Marius’ victory is surprisingly negative. The praise of his troops,

however, reflects Marius’ positive traits as they were initially listed: industria, probitas,

militiae magna scientia, animus belli ingens domi modicus, lubidinis et diuitiarum uictor,

tantummodo gloriae auidus.63 If his troops’ dispositions reflect his own, we see that

Marius is still a diuitiarum uictor tantummodo gloriae auidus. Sallust approves of the

appetite for glory.64 Sallust solely indicts Marius, therefore, on account of his reliance on

chance. As Marius’ campaign continues, he appears more and more Numidian.

Following this, Jugurtha attacks Marius’ army while it is on its way to its winter

camp.65 From previous experience, Jugurtha and Bocchus think that they will have the

advantage at night.

Ita amborum exercitu coniuncto Marium, iam in hiberna proficiscentem, uix decuma parte die relicua inuadunt, rati noctem, quae iam aderat, et uictis sibi

62 BC 6-7 describes the Romans similarly to both the early Numidians and these Roman soldiers under Marius. Thus it is difficult to say that Marius’ portrayal by Sallust is unequivocally negative. 63 BI 63.2 quoted above. 64 Paul’s note at BJ 1.4 (1984, 12) is puzzling precisely because Sallust clearly advocates the pursuit of glory. Cf. Earl 1961. 65 BI 97.3. 63

munimento fore et, si uicissent, nullo inpedimento, quia locorum scientes erant, contra Romanis utrumque casum in tenebris difficiliorem fore. (BI 97.3)

Thus after joining their armies, they both attacked Marius while he was setting out for his winter camp when there was scarcely a tenth of the day remaining as they had thought that the night, which was just setting in, would be a protection for themselves even if they were defeated, and, if they should win, it would be no obstacle (for them), because they knew the place, but that either outcome in the dark would be difficult for the Romans.

Sallust’s Numidians have noticed their alliance with the natura loci insofar as night is concerned. At the Muthul, the Numidians were more proficient at night, and they have clearly learned that lesson. Here they attempt to use that knowledge against Marius. And their armies do indeed react positively when night actually does set in during the battle.

Iamque dies consumptus erat, quom tamen barbari nihil remittere atque, uti reges praeceperant, noctem pro se rati acrius instare. (BI 98.2)

And then the day was used up, although the barbarians still did not at all let up and, as the kings had predicted, indeed began to press them more fiercely, as they thought that the night was to their advantage.

Not only do Jugurtha and Bocchus see night as their aid, but the Numidian army also derives encouragement from it. Their faith in the night as an ally in battle, however, ends up being misplaced. Every advantage which the natura loci gave to the Numidians at the

Muthul, moreover, appears to go against them in this instance as the Romans enjoy the good graces, as it were, of the land and continue to resemble the Africans more closely.

Tum Marius ex copia rerum consilium trahit atque, uti suis receptui locus esset, collis duos propinquos inter se occupat, quorum in uno castris parum amplo fons aquae magnus erat, alter usui opportunus, quia magna parte editus et praeceps pauca munimenta quaerebat. (BI 98.3)

Then Marius drew up a plan from the opportunity of the situation, and, so that there might be a retreat for his men, he took two hills right next to each other, of which there was a great spring on one, though too small for a camp, and the other was well suited for use, because most of it was high and steep and therefore needed little fortification.

First, Marius’ interaction with the land seems different than Metellus’ at the Muthul simply from the way in which they engage it. Marius’ plan is driven as a reaction to the situation, while Metellus’ first reaction was to control the situation. Marius’ concern for water reflects that of Metellus, but significantly contrasts. While Metellus sent Rutulius to a boundary of the plain to which he was limited, Marius seeks water on a hill, a typically Numidian retreat. Finally, not only does Marius take position on the high ground, a typically Numidian position, but he takes position on a hill which is editus et praeceps. As I have argued, this would formerly have constituted an obstacle for the

Roman army. But this army does not operate like that of Metellus. Although they were both without an ordered line in their respective encounters, Metellus insists on ordering the ranks, while Marius seems unconcerned with such Roman necessities.66 As Sallust

goes on to discuss the actual Roman retreat, he once again uses inversion to demonstrate

the changing face of the Roman army.

Ceterum apud aquam Sullam cum equitibus noctem agitare iubet, ipse paulatim dispersos milites neque minus hostibus conturbatis in unum contrahit, dein cunctos pleno gradu in collem subducit. Ita reges loci difficultate coacti proelio deterrentur, neque tamen suos longius abire sinunt, sed utroque colle multitudine circumdato effusi consedere. (BI 98.4-5)

But he ordered Sulla to spend the night with his cavalry at the spring, and he himself little by little drew his soldiers, who were dispersed and no less disordered than the enemy, together, and then led them all onto the hill at full pace. Thus the kings, forced by the difficulty of the land, were held from battle, but they still did not allow their men to go far away, but rather sat spread out with each hill surrounded by a crowd.

Sallust notes the apparent similarity between the Roman and African troops. Again, we

see them from a character’s point of view—in this case Marius’—and they appear

randomly dispersed like the Numidians. Once Marius has finally collected his troops, he

66 BI 97.3-98.1. Rather than impose order on the mayhem as Metellus did in his parallel situation, Marius and his men simply fight in mobs, and appear to do so quite proficiently. 65

takes them to the hill at such a pace that the Numidians are unable to keep up on account of the rough terrain. Nothing has changed which would make the Numidians suddenly unable to negotiate the terrain which has posed no problem for them up to this point.

While the Numidians were able to flee from Metellus at the Muthul with the aid of hills and night, the Romans are able to do the same thing here. The reader is therefore witnessing a sort of inversion. Although it is indeed night at this point, Sallust focuses on the terrain facilitating a Roman retreat. Night will help the Romans attack again.

Dein crebris ignibus factis plerumque noctis barbari more suo laetari, exultare, strepere uocibus; et ipsi duces, feroces quia non fugerant, pro uictoribus agere. Sed ea cuncta Romanis ex tenebris et editioribus locis facilia uisu magnoque hortamento erant. Plurumum uero Marius inperitia hostium confirmatus quam maxumum silentium haberi iubet, ne signa quidem, uti per uigilias solebant, canere. (BI 98.6-99.1)

Then the barbarians spotted the land with fires and in their fashion spent most of the night rejoicing, dancing, and shouting with their voices; even the generals themselves, haughty because they had not fled, acted like they were victors. But for the Romans all of these things were easy to see from the dark and the higher ground, and they were a great encouragement. Marius, indeed greatly reassured by the inexperience of his enemies, ordered them to be as silent as was possible, so that they did not call out the signals as they would usually do over the course of the night.

The high position and night, traditionally advantages enjoyed by the Numidians, are working for the Romans now. Sallust’s use of night to mark the inversion is quite subtle.

When near a fire at night, one actually is easier to see, even while finding it more difficult to see. That is the exact position in which the Numidians have put themselves. Sallust thus weaves his subtle literary device into the narrative quite well here, such that it is both literarily effective as well as historically credible.

Corporis Vis, Virtus Animi

The key to understanding Sallust’s construction of character is found in the prologues of the Bellum Iugurthinum and the Bellum Catilinae. In these Sallust elucidates a sort of philosophic groundwork which governs his conception of a life well lived. These prologues are short, however, and present a number of challenges themselves. The general picture painted by these prologues will nevertheless serve to make sense of much of the moral characterization evident in the historical narrative.

The division of the human makeup which Sallust advocates is that between the corpus and the anima.67 The animus appears to be some sort of a guiding principle which directs a man’s ingenium.68 Ingenium is the capacity of the anima and has its physical correlate in uis, the capacity of the body. Like all other uses of uis in the Bellum

Iugurthinum, the corporis uis is a temporary, transient faculty, whereas ingeni egregia facinora sicut anima inmortalia sunt.69 The corporis uis, in other words, is that part of the natura hominum analogous to the external, temporary features of the land, also frequently expressed in terms of uis, on which the man whose animus pursues glory by means of the uirtutis uia need not rely, since they are related to fortuna.

Metellus and Marius are both indicted, therefore, as falling short of ideal, but in a particular sense. Marius’ reliance on fortuna is an underlined, negative theme.

Paradoxically, however, he excels at enduring the physical landscape. He moves where

Metellus can not, and therefore seems less reliant on favorable circumstances. The paradox is resolved, however, when we remember to associate Marius with corporis uis,

67 BI 2.2. 68 BI 1. 69 BI 2.2. 67

which Sallust unequivocally advocates as its own virtue.70 Marius can move like the

Numidian, because, in the end, he and his troops share Jugurtha’s physical virtues. In

Paul’s words, proper uirtus animi “can shape externals to ensure success.”71 Marius can

merely endure those externals. Sallust expands and develops that moralist perspective, which he expresses so briefly in the prologue, throughout his narrative.

70 BC 1.5. 71 Paul 1984, 1.3n. 68

The Prologue: Character and the Path to Virtue

Many have noted problems in reading the Bellum Iugurthinum as an historical document. Thus Harry Avery has supposed that Marius’ association with fortuna was

Sallust’s invention to pave the way for the arrival of Sulla Felix (95.1) in Sallust’s account, and has detected the influence of Herodotean folklore in Sallust’s account of the siege at the Muluccha River,1 and Douglas Stewart has noted the difficulty in using

Sallust for strictly historical investigations.2 Victor Parker has published an article concerning the historicity of the Bellum Jugurthinum. Stating as his problem the fact that there is little historical evidence against which to check Sallust’s account of this significant war, Parker attempts to weed out what is clearly Sallust’s bias in order to distil the historical facts. To that end, Parker notes a pattern in Sallust’s account wherein the author provides the moral thesis in order to relate events, which, by themselves, would contradict that very thesis, in a light which might conversely reinforce it. We have seen this pattern with the ethnographical discourse concerning the division of Numidia.

Sallust talks about the corruption of the senate before narrating its reward of the western half of Numidia, which Sallust claims is better, to Jugurtha.3 While Sallust would have us believe that this is a sign of the senate’s corruption,4 the discerning reader will realize that what the senate has actually done is to deprive Jugurtha, who, lest we forget, had all

1 Avery 1967, 328 for Herodotus’ influence. 2 Stewart 1968, 315 speaks of Sallust’s habit of “telescoping” history by recounting events highly selectively. 3 Parker 2004, 409-412. 4 BI 16.4. 68

of Numidia under his control, of the better part of Numidia which held all the practical advantages. For western Numidia, although Sallust claims that it is in agro uirisque opulentior,5 must have been economically inferior to Adherbal’s territory in reality. But

Sallust uses the ethnographic tradition to color his account as he wishes, in this case so

that Jugurtha appears to have received special consideration when he likely did not.

While Parker’s purpose is to reconstruct the historical truth, mine is to look at the

very thesis which Parker attempts to see past in his search for historical fact. Parker’s

task, however, works to underline the importance of reading Sallust as a literary author.

The transmission of facts by means of artful prose does not constitute Sallust’s primary

authorial goal, and to understand Sallust, therefore, his literary purposes are of primary

concern. Just as in his Bellum Catilinae, Sallust begins his Bellum Iugurthinum with a

quasi-philosophical prologue, in which he outlines the moral constitution of mankind and, more specifically, the men of Rome during his own day. The ideas contained within

this prologue serve to set the context and the tone for the entire monograph. The

prologue serves to give Sallust’s account its literary purpose.

The prologue to Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum has received note as a literary

masterpiece. Its relevance to the monograph itself, however, has proved a more

troublesome question which D.C. Earl, among others, treated with some brilliance.6 The prologue begins with a section concerning the makeup of a man and the sources of his strengths and weaknesses, in which Sallust uses a terminology shared with philosophic discourse roughly contemporary such as Cicero’s De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum.

5 BI 16.5 literally, “richer in men and territory.” Rolfe 1931, 169 takes the point to be that this part of Numidia is more thickly populated and more fertile. In accordance with chapter 2 above and Morstein- Marx 2001, I would argue that Sallust’s claim about the men refers to quality and not quantity. I would also argue that agro does not necessarily refer to agriculture. 6 Earl 1961, 1-17; Stewart 1968, 298-302. 69

Most likely Sallust is unconcerned with aligning himself with a particular school of philosophy, but the language he uses betrays a certain amount of comfort with terms shared by Cicero in his book on stoic ethics.7 Thus both Sallust and Cicero strongly

connect honestum with virtus.8 When Cicero says, cum enim ab iis rebus quae sunt

secundum naturam ascendit animus collatione rationis, tum ad notionem boni pervenit,9

the metaphorical motion of the animus resembles Sallust’s, qui, ubi ad gloriam uirtutis uia grassatur.10 Finally Cicero calls virtus an ars which eliminates temeritas and

ignoratio.11 While the relationship drawn by Sallust between the words, ars and virtus,

ends up being quite different, the idea of virtus as something practiced—i.e. an ars— as

we will see with Sallust in a moment, seems to be common to both texts.12 While it is

more likely that Sallust simply borrows language from philosophic discourse without

aligning himself with any specific school, it is not my purpose to argue such a point.

Ultimately, my main concern in this chapter is rather to trace the use of certain terms in

the prologues—for I will use the prologue of the Catiline as well—some of which will

then appear throughout the narrative as signs, as it were, directing Sallust’s construction

of character. Marked uses of words, such as natura, vis, tempus, animus, ingenium,

gloria, and virtus, take on a particular weight and, when used throughout the monograph,

recall their more particular use in the beginning, and thus facilitate Sallust’s moral

7 The origin of Sallust’s ideas has been speculated. Posidonius, Plato, Stoicism at large, and even Aristotle have all been suggested. See Earl 1961, 6 and citations ad loc. 8 BI 3; De Fin. III.8.29 honeste—id est cum virtute—vivere. 9 De Fin. III.10.33 10 BI 1.3. 11 De Fin. III.21.72; Although Sallust does not mention the term, virtus, in his initial characterization (7.5), he states that Jugurtha remains both proelio strenuos and bonus consilio without exhibiting the extreme of either, timor or audacia. 12 When Earl 1961, 12 speaks of Sallust’s use of bonae artes and malae artes as his own innovation, his point, in my opinion, although probably not entirely incorrect, needs qualification. 70

construction and characterization. What is more, we must not forget Sallust himself, not only as author, but as an object of his own construction.

Sallust begins both bella with a quasi philosophic view of the composition of human nature as a driving force for historical action. A man is composed of the mind and the body. While the body is mortal, the mind is eternal.13 And as these are the two parts

which compose a person, some of one’s fancies are of the body, while others are of the

mind. These respective inclinations, moreover, tend to reflect their source.14 For as

Sallust elaborates, praeclara facies, magnae diuitiae, ad hoc uis corporis et alia omnia

huiusce modi breui dilabuntur; at ingeni egregia facinora sicuti anima inmortalia sunt.15

As Erik Gunderson points out, the mind’s dominance was not established until a lubido dominandi was felt by certain nations. Gunderson reads this with a view to a philosophy of history in which the dominance of any one thing is just as contingent on the object of that domination as it is on the dominator.16 His point is well taken, although Sallust does give his duality a more traditional flavor when he states that the mind is something we share with the gods whereas the body we share with beasts,17 implying a prior superiority

of the animus. It will be important, furthermore, to remember that Sallust still recognizes

the importance of the body in all matters martial.18

The Jugurtha itself begins abruptly, Falso queritur de natura sua genus

humanum.19 Sallust’s tone is chastising as he begins to correct the common

misconception that the nature of men is fragile, with a short life span, and ruled by

13 BI 2.3. 14 BI 2.1. 15 BI 2.2 “outstanding looks, great wealth, and on top of this the power of the body and all else of this kind will fail in a short time; but extraordinary deeds of the intellect are, just as the soul, immortal.” 16 Gunderson 2000, 94. 17 BC 1.2. 18 BC 1.7. 19 BI 1.1 “Incorrectly does the human race complain about its own nature.” 71

chance rather than by virtus. Upon reflection, according to Sallust, such men will find that nothing is greater and that it is more often in the nature of men to lack diligence

(industria) than power (vis) or time (tempus). Sallust’s response thus far has described a life well lived. Human nature is endowed with an appropriate amount of vis and tempus.

That is to say that men are equipped with the power to effect their goals and the time to apply that power. Vis is a perplexing word in Sallust. Although in the Catiline Sallust will freely speak of a vis animi, he seems to prefer to use it in the Jugurtha mostly when talking about the corporeal.20 As we have seen, Sallust uses the word repeatedly

throughout his narrative construct in interesting ways. It is often a potential force held by

natura, just as it is here. While the meaning of natura seems to differ, its relationship

with vis does not. Tempus is similarly a continual concern throughout Sallust’s

narrative, as we have also seen, although it does not appear to mean quite the same thing

as it does here at first glance. Recall, for instance, Metellus’ concern for the tempus at

the Muluccha River and Rutilius’ subsequent encounter with a pulueris uis. Thus far

Sallust has merely been speaking of the predispositions of human nature. What follows

is of integral importance to the theme of the monograph as well.

Sed dux atque imperator uitae mortalium animus est; qui, ubi ad gloriam uirtutis uia grassatur, abunde pollens potensque et clarus est neque fortuna eget, quippe quae probitatem, industriam aliasque artis bonas neque dare neque eripere quoiquam potest. (BI 1.3)

But mind is the leader and the commander of the life of mortals, which, when it proceeds down the road of virtue to glory, is strong and powerful and brilliant and does not need fortune, of course, since she is neither able to give to nor take from anyone honesty, diligence and the other good practices.

20 There is, however, at least one counterexample at BI 33.2. 72

The strong adversative conjunction, sed, changes the subject from merely a correction concerning the actual nature of men to an explanation of that faculty which actually determines a man’s life, and which can therefore fail him. The animus, or the mind as I have translated it, is that entity which can direct a mortal’s activity. If this follows the way of virtue,21 it will not need fortune. Sallust’s explanation for this is that fortune is

unable to give or take away bonae artes. It seems reasonable, therefore, that these bonae artes are practices one follows which constitute the virtutis via. We have seen how

Sallust has put particular stress on chance when characterizing Marius and narrating his

campaign. Sallust’s prologue has already explicitly stated that reliance on fortune is

strictly antithetical to virtus. Although we should not imagine that Sallust sees good luck

as a sin, the tension between the two ideas has been clearly delineated. Up to this point,

Sallust has eliminated a man’s intrinsic nature as a legitimate cause for failure as well as

any external alignment of chance. Man’s nature is neither weak nor inherently subject to

fortune. Sallust proceeds to give his account of failure.

Sin captus prauis cupidinibus ad inertiam et uoluptates corporis pessum datus est, perniciosa lubidine paulisper usus, ubi per socordiam uires tempus ingenium diffluxere, naturae infirmitas accusatur: suam quisque culpam auctores ad negotia transferunt. (BI 1.4)

If, on the contrary, he has been enslaved by craven desires and handed over to carnal delights in the worst way after indulging in treacherous lust for but a short while, when he has wasted away his strength, time, and intellect through sloth, the weakness of nature is indicted: each person acting as his own agent passes his own culpability to the situation.

The implication is that men are naturally endowed with strength (vires=vis?), time

(tempus) to apply that strength, and intellect (ingenium). Once his animus, the governing

21 This translation is not ideal, but our word, “virtue,” I think brings up similar questions of definition which virtus must have. 73

faculty for activity which distinguishes men from beasts, indulges in harmful lust, one which brings about socordia, those faculties with which a man is naturally endowed begin to wear away. The common response is to claim that they were never his to begin with. This possibility, as Sallust sees it, appears to amount to a deliberate divergence from the virtutis via on the part of a man’s animus. Socordia is, after all, quite a suitable opposite for one of Sallust’s main bonae artes, industria. Thus Sallust has described a situation in which the animus practices bonae artes and thus proceeds to gloria down the virtutis via and one in which it practices a mala ars and thus wastes away the sources of all those abilities which allow him to proceed down the virtutis via. Before moving on to a discussion of the composition of mankind, Sallust concludes his rebuttal.

Quod si hominibus bonarum rerum tanta cura esset quanto studio aliena ac nihil profutura multaque etiam periculosa petunt, neque regerentur magis quam regerent casus et eo magnitudinis procederent ubi pro mortalibus gloria aeterni fierent. (BI 1.5)

But if there were so great a care among men for good things as there is eagerness with which they do indeed seek the possessions of others as well as things not at all advantageous and many things even dangerous, they would not be ruled more than they would command events and they would proceed to that point of greatness at which they would become immortals instead of mortals by means of glory.

And here we have reached the goal of the animus, to realize its own immortality in the achievement of gloria. The desire of other things keeps men from achieving gloria. At this point in the text, Sallust is ready to explain briefly his view of the essential composition of mankind from which he comes to this conclusion.

Nam uti genus hominum conpositum ex corpore et anima est, ita res cunctae studiaque omnia nostra corporis alia, alia animi naturam secuntur. Igitur praeclara facies, magnae diuitiae, ad hoc uis corporis et alia omnia huiusce modi breui dilabuntur; at ingeni egregia facinora sicuti anima inmortalia sunt.

Postremo corporis et fortunae bonorum ut initium sic finis est, omniaque orta occidunt et aucta senescunt: animus incorruptus, aeternus, rector humani generis agit atque habet cuncta neque ipse habetur. (BI 2.1-3)

For as mankind is composed from the body and the soul, thus all our affairs and concerns (are split), some following the nature of the body and some following the nature of the mind. Therefore outstanding looks, great wealth, and on top of this the power of the body as well as everything else of this sort will fail in a short time; but the extraordinary deeds of the intellect are, just as the soul, immortal. Finally just as there is a beginning of a good body and good fortune, thus there is an end, and all things fall after rising and wither after growing: the mind is the unchanging, eternal master of the human race which moves and holds everything and is itself not held.

Sallust dwells on the immortality of the animus and all that is associated with it, signaling to the reader the importance of this idea as he reads the historical narrative.

Sallust emphasizes the importance of virtus. As the traditional ideal of a noble in the Roman Republic, virtus has proved difficult to define. D. C. Earl has claimed that the word is almost untranslatable, and has offered “manliness” as a best effort.22 Recently,

Myles McDonnell has contested Earl’s entire approach to describing virtus with an

attempt at what appears to be an exhaustive word study. In his study, McDonnell sets out

to demonstrate that virtus has multiple meanings which change over time, the traditional

Roman meaning being “military valor,” and the political and ethical meaning simply

being a translation of the Greek ethical concept, ἀρετή.23 McDonnell’s study, however,

is fundamentally flawed in that it does not allow for any distinction between sense and

reference. As it appears from his book, McDonnell would have us consider every

different use of the word its own meaning. Moreover, Earl clearly allows for the word’s

dynamic use and development over time.24 Such normative terms are difficult for the

22 Earl 1967, 20. 23 McDonnell 2006, Ch. 1-4. 24McDonnell 2006 assigns to Earl a view of virtus, in which the meaning is static throughout the republic and empire. Earl 1967, 20 is clear, however: “Words are anything but fixed. Meanings will not stay in 75

modern reader to understand, and a definition is necessarily nearly impossible. We can, however, look at the terms with which such words are typically associated. From this perspective, Sallust’s description of virtus, though probably his own formulation, is at least rooted in general terms. Cicero speaks of a virtutis cursus, which corresponds to

Sallust’s uirtutis uia.25 Plautus links virtus with industria,26 and contrasts it from

ambitio.27 He also pronounces an association with eternity at Captivi 683. That said,

Sallust’s reformulation is important, as he emphasizes the importance of merit over

birth.28 Sallust is, as we have seen, primarily concerned with action. The mind must use

the intellect to engage in good practices, lest it degenerate into vice. Appropriately, his

moralistic account is a history, a record of actions. The narrative serves to illustrate the

application of his philosophy, in which the mind and body interact with one another.

The Jugurtha is particularly well suited in this regard, since the setting occasions

an opportunity to manipulate the ethnography and geography of Africa such that Sallust

can stress this theme that divides the nature of man into a physical and mental being.

While there does not appear one character beyond reproach in the Jugurtha, Sallust’s

stated purpose—to imitate the effects of the imagines and inflame his readers to uirtus— must not be forgotten.29 And so we do not see men who per socordiam uires tempus

ingenium diffluxere.30 Rather the flaws we see in Sallust’s narrative are those which

pertain to the perversion of uirtus. The characters of the greatest interest are Jugurtha and

Marius, who both have the same vice of ambitio. Ambitio appears to be the perversion of

place but slip and slide into each other. For the ancient publicist and propagandist this was a great advantage.” 25 Cic. Planc. 67. 26 Plautus Pseud. 581. 27 Plautus Amph. 75-76. 28 Earl 1967, 44f. 29 BI 4.6. 30 BI 1.4. 76

virtus which seeks the same ends, gloria in memoria, but by the wrong means.31 Both

Jugurtha and Marius make great use of their vis and tempus, but allow their ingenium to go awry. Christina Kraus has pointed out that thematically, Jugurtha and Marius are the same person. Once we see less of Jugurtha, his role is picked up by Marius. The difference is that one is Numidian and the other is Roman.32 It is important to remember

that Sallust is not against the application of physical force.33 Rather, Sallust simply

points out the transient nature of such accomplishments. True virtus comes from the

application of the ingenium, which amounts to the vis animi.34 The shortcoming of both

Jugurtha and Marius is in this area, and therefore they are hardy characters who can

endure their environment, but not control it as Sallust would have the ideal character

do.35

Jugurtha’s encounters with Metellus exhibit a shortcoming in his now depraved

ingenium. His comfort with the land is quite clearly superior. Given Rutilius’ captives,

elephants, we could go so far as to call Jugurtha’s comfort with the land bestial. The

Numidians are uninhibited by the terrain, they stalk their opponents from the trees, and

they function expertly at night with little effort. Metellus, on the other hand, displays a

great amount of discomfort with the land. He is boxed in on a plain by features of land.

Fearing the time of year, he thinks that the Numidians will use his troops’ thirst to their

advantage. Metellus’ response is interesting, because it is an attempt to control his

external situation by sending Rutilius off to secure the river. So while Jugurtha is

31 Earl 1961, 9-11 makes this argument from the text of the prologues of the Bella. 32 I have argued above for the inversion of the respective roles of the Numidians and the Romans at certain points in Marius’ campaign, which is in accordance with her view. 33 E.g. BC 1.5-7. 34Sallust more consistently in the Jugurtha uses vis to mean some corporeal or physical force. 35 BI 1.5, quoted above. 77

passively endurant to and even compliant with the terrain, Metellus actively tries to control it.36 When night falls, it allows the Numidians an easy escape, whereas the

Romans must undergo the drama of a near catastrophe in order to keep from killing each

other. The terms from the prologue, tempus anni and pulveris vis appear only to be

mastered by the ingenium of Metellus and Rutilius respectively. But Jugurtha’s initial

encounter with Metellus winds up teaching Metellus some of the tricks which Jugurtha’s

weaker or perverted ingenium uses. Metellus accordingly hides his standards upon his

approach to Vaga. Also, Metellus gains some comfort with the land as he sets out at

night. This, along with the rainfall at Thala, seems to be nothing more than a foil to show

that Jugurtha’s depraved ingenium is contagious. Its infection becomes apparent not only

through the use of a dolus, but an apparent comfort acquired with his surroundings:

Metellus does not have to work so hard to transform his external situation with his

ingenium, although Sallust does indicate preparation in the attempt on Thala.

Marius’ fall into ambitio is foretold in his initial characterization during Metellus’

campaign. His control over the situation at Capsa was even dubious (dis fretus). At the

Muluccha, we see his use of consilium fall completely out of the picture. To be sure,

chance is a major player, but his—and his troops’—vis is also strongly emphasized.

These troops do not display avaritia, as they leave all booty behind in their zeal to take the fort, but they ostensibly lack the guidance of consilium, a function of use by the animus of ingenium. Thus they are like the youth in Rome’s virtuous past, but they do not have anything taking the role of the senate to guide them. For Sallust states in the

Catiline that delecti, quibus corpus annis infirmum, ingenium sapientia ualidum erat, rei

36 BI 2.3, quoted above, introduces this theme of controlling one’s external situation. 78

publicae consultabant: ii uel aetate uel curae similitudine patres appellabantur.37 And

he says of the youth a little later that se quisque hostem ferire, murum ascendere,

conspici dum tale facinus faceret properabat; eas diuitias, eam bonam famam

magnamque nobilitatem putabant.38 Erik Gunderson has argued, successfully, I think,

that the Catiline uses different levels of scale to expand upon Sallust’s views of human nature. Thus the makeup of the virtuous Roman state, composed of the youth and the senate, reflects the composition of an individual, composed of the body and the soul. At the Muluccha Marius and his men are well endowed with vis corporis, but lack ingenium.

Following this, as I have pointed out, Marius takes up the role which Jugurtha had in his first encounter with Metellus.

Thus Jugurtha’s moral depravity, grounded in the avarice of the Roman nobility, has taken shape in ambitio. Interestingly, it is this ambitio, which in turn manifests itself

in Metellus’ use of a dolus and Marius’ reliance on chance. Sallust narrates neatly the

continued decline of the Roman state which had a hope in Marius, were it not for his

encounter with Jugurtha in this war. The irony of Sallust’s final sentence thus takes on

oppressive weight: Et ea tempestate spes atque opes ciuitatis in illo sitae.39

37 BC 6.6 “a chosen few, whose body was weakened by years, but whose intellect was strong, would advise the republic: either due to their age or to the similarity of their care, they were called fathers.” 38 BC 7.6 “each rushed to throw himself at the enemy, climb the wall, and noticed while doing some deed; they thought that this was their wealth, this their good name and great nobility.” 39 BI 114.4; Scanlon 1987 treats the biting tone of this summation well; Levene 1992, 55 provides an examination of the last line’s disquieting lack of closure. 79