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. iv v 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. vi 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. 1 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. 2 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.