The Bellum Jugurthinum (English: The Jugurthine War)[note 1] is an historical monograph by the Roman historian Sallust, published in or around 41 BC.[1] It describes the events of the Jugurthine War (112–106 BC) between the Roman Republic and King Jugurtha of Numidia. Sallust alleges that Jugurtha was able to repeatedly bribe corrupted Roman officials during the war, which Sallust took as indicative of a broader moral decline in the late Republic. In this way, the Bellum Jugurthinum is thematically similar to Sallust's first monograph, the Bellum Catilinae. The Bellum Jugurthinum is the main historical source for the Jugurthine War.
The Bellum Jugurthinum was written and published around 40 B.C.,[note 2] and has come down to us by direct tradition through medieval codices.[note 3] Especially in Anglo-Saxon countries, it is also known under the title De bello Iugurthino.
Compared to the first Sallustian monograph, the Bellum Jugurthinum appears markedly more varied. Unlike De Catilinae coniuratione - in which the conspiracy lasts about a year and a half, with the main events localized between November 63 and January 62 B.C., taking place in Rome and Etruria, thus in a fairly limited area - in Bellum Jugurthinum the theater of events changes frequently, with sudden shifts between Rome and Africa, and the wearisome war that breaks out, the antecedents of which are also narrated, lasts for a full seven years, from 111 to 105 B.C. The character system is also more complex: the Romans Scipio, Metellus, Scaurus, Bestia, Marius, and Sulla are contrasted with the Numids Micipsa, Adherbal, Jugurtha, and Bocchus, and in any case the narrative is more eventful and richer as the main characters present ambiguous, multifaceted, and even changeable dispositions.
Although stretched into a longer text (114 chapters), the narrative technique is kept the same as in the Bellum Catilinae, namely that typical of Hellenistic historiography. In fact, after the proem, the portrait of the protagonist, and the antecedents ("archaeology") that link the story with the history of Rome, the historian begins to narrate the events by interspersing them with digressions and speeches that mark pauses for reflection and offer the occasion for particularly meaningful displays of rhetoric and historical judgments.
Structure of the Bellum Jugurthinum
Chapter(s)
Contents
Topics covered
1–4
Proem
Incipit: the body, the soul, the virtus.
5
Introduction
Rationale for the choice of topic.
6–16
Background of the story
Events between 120 and 117 BC and portrait of the protagonist.
In 146 BC. Rome became the undisputed ruler of the Mediterranean and most of the territories bordering it. Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus carried out the siege of Carthage and annihilated its historic rival, while to the east the armies of the Urbe razed Corinth to the ground and sanctioned Roman dominance over Greece and the entire Balkan peninsula. For Rome, a new historical phase was opening that, through a century of crisis, would lead to the fall of the Republic and the birth of the Empire. At the political level, there was to be pacification in Spain, where the Celtiberians and Lusitanians had long been in revolt. On the social level, however, a major crisis was sweeping the Italic economy: local crafts were being supplanted by products from the East, and small landowners,
who formed the recruiting base for the armies, had found their fields destroyed after years of neglect. Only the exploitation of the provinces guaranteed the subsistence of the state, and ensured, at the same time, very considerable possibilities of enrichment for the class of equites. In this context the policy of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus took shape: opposed to them and to the factio of the populares was that of the optimates, eager to maintain their privileges by becoming increasingly disinterested in the real conditions of the res publica.
The subject of the second Sallustian monograph is the wearisome war, which Rome fought between 111 and 105 B.C., (seventy years before the publication of the work) in Africa against the king of NumidiaJugurtha, and which ended in Roman victory. It was not in this case a war waged by the rapacity (or avaritia as Sallust's term would have it) of the nobilitas:[note 4] in fact, the senate really had no interest in it and would not have benefited greatly from fighting on the African front, where it hoped to pursue a policy of non-intervention.[note 5] Instead, it risked leaving the northern front uncovered, where, a few years later, there would be the dangerous invasion of Italy by the Cimbri and Teutons, who would cross the Alps only to be defeated, in Italic territory, by Gaius Marius.[note 6] The classes most interested in the African campaign were, rather, the equites (horsemen), advocates of a policy of exploiting the commercial resources available in the Mediterranean Basin, the wealthy Italic mercatores (merchants) (from whose ranks came the negotiatores massacred in 112 B.C. by Jugurtha):[2] they derived much of their wealth from trade in the provinces, and the strengthening of Roman rule in Africa might have appeared to them as an attractive prospect, whereas losing control over those areas appeared undesirable. The Roman and Italic plebs, for their part, hoped that, after the conquest, African lands would be distributed according to the usus instituted ten years earlier by Gaius Gracchus, when the first overseas Roman colony had been founded on the ruins of Carthage.[note 7]
In such a framework it is understandable how, after years of useless and inconclusive guerrilla warfare, the "Jugurthian problem" was destined to be liquidated by a representative of the forces interested in the conquest, far from the senatorial nobilitas, the homo novusGaius Marius, and not by aristocratic generals, whom Sallust can only accuse of corruption, incapacity and pride.
Falso queritur de natura sua genus humanum, quod imbecilla atque aevi brevis forte potius quam virtute regatur. Nam contra reputando neque maius aliud neque praestabilius invenias magisque naturae industriam hominum quam vim aut tempus deesse. Sed dux atque imperator vitae mortalium animus est. Qui ubi ad gloriam virtutis via grassatur, abunde pollens potensque et clarus est neque fortuna eget, quippe quae probitatem, industriam aliasque artis bonas neque dare neque eripere cuiquam potest.
Mankind wrongly complains that its nature, weak and short-lived, is governed by chance rather than virtue. In fact, on closer inspection, it will be found on the contrary that there is nothing greater and nobler, and that human nature lacks the will to act more than strength or time. But it is the spirit that guides and dominates men's lives. When it tends to glory through the path of virtue, it possesses vigor, strength and fame in abundance and has no need of fortune, for it cannot infuse honesty, tenacity and other moral qualities in anyone, nor wrest them from those who possess them.
Like De Catilinae coniuratione,[3] the Bellum Jugurthinum opens with a proem that is outside the historical events narrated in the work, but which highlights the author's ideology regarding human nature: indeed, the human being consists of body and soul,[4] but only the solid possession of virtue is a guarantee of eternal glory. Man must therefore exercise the soul more than the body, since the goods of the body are ephemeral and destined to disappear, while those of the soul allow one to have real control over one's life, and lead to immortal greatness.[5]
The universally valid Sallustian message takes on particular relevance in the context of the crisis of the res publica, when it is precisely attachment to virtus that seems to be the only path capable of restoring peace and stability.
Verum ex iis magistratus et imperia, postremo omnis cura rerum publicarum minime mihi hac tempestate cupienda videntur, quoniam neque virtuti honor datur neque illi, quibus per fraudem iis fuit uti, tuti aut eo magis honesti sunt.
Among these, however, magistratures and military commands, in short, any public office, do not seem at all desirable in this period, because honor is not given on merit, and even those who have obtained it through intrigue are not more secure or honored for it.
Sallust, therefore, openly criticizes the political system, which allows those who do not deserve it to attain power;[note 8] in such a situation, fundamental is the importance played by the historian's activity, which instead risks being regarded as otium. Through the proem, then, Sallust can also ennoble his activity, as he does, similarly, in De coniuratione Catilinae.[6][note 9]
Bellum scripturus sum, quod populus Romanus[note 10]cum Iugurtha rege Numidarum gessit, primum quia magnum et atrox variaque victoria fuit, dein quia tunc primum superbiae nobilitatis obviam itum est.
I am going to recount the war that the Roman people fought with Jugurtha, king of the Numids, first because it was long, bitter and with ups and downs, then because for the first time the arrogance of the nobles was countered.[note 11]
After introducing the actual historical narrative, Sallust recounts, so that the whole of the events may be clearer and more understandable,[7] the history of the kingdom of Numidia: during the Second Punic War, the Numidian king Masinissa helped Publius Cornelius Scipio against the CarthaginianHannibal, and, after the Battle of Zama and subsequent treaties, Rome decided to reward him by granting him sovereignty over many of the lands wrested from the Carthaginians, thus creating a strong friendly relationship with Numidia.[note 5][8] Upon Masinissa's death, his three sons, Gulussa, Mastanabal and Micipsa, inherited the kingdom, but the latter remained as sole ruler due to the untimely deaths of his brothers. In turn, Micipsa left the kingdom to his sons, Adherbal and Hiempsal, and his nephew Jugurtha, son of Mastanabal and a concubine.[9]
After the brief historical digression, the narrative shifts to the character of Jugurtha, of whom Sallust provides an accurate psychological description, and then to that of Micipsa: the latter, old and now close to death, is led as much to exalt Jugurtha as to suspect his good faith:[10] for this reason, in 133 B.C. he sends him to Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, engaged in the siege of Numantia, in the hope that the young man will die in the war. Jugurtha, however, survives and distinguishes himself for his bravery, so much so that he deserves numerous personal praises.[11][note 12] A few years later[note 13] then, Micipsa, on his deathbed, summons his sons along with Jugurtha, and designates all three as his heirs, advising them to rule in harmony.[12]
The three heirs immediately disregarded the recommendations they had received: they divided the state treasury among themselves and divided up areas of influence; in particular, sharp disagreements arose between Jugurtha and Hiempsal. The latter, of a very prideful nature,[13] attempted to put his cousin in the background, but Jugurtha, in response, had him killed.[14]
The repercussions of the act were very serious:[15] most of the terrified Numids rallied around Adherbal, who was forced to send ambassadors to Rome and clash with Jugurtha in the field. From the battle, however, Adherbal emerges defeated, and he is forced to flee to Rome, where he hopes to receive the support of the senate; meanwhile, Jugurtha also sends gold and silver to Rome, to make gifts of it to the senators and thus draw them to his side.[16] Having arrived in Rome, Adherbal is able to deliver a long speech in the Senate: in order to sensitize the audience, he tries to leverage the relationship of friendship and fides that binds Rome to the Numidian dynasty,[note 14] emphasizes the villainy of Jugurtha's actions and portrays himself as unhappy and hapless.[note 15][note 16] Having also listened to Jugurtha's ambassadors, the senators, bribed by the sums of money they received, decide to favor the usurper: they merely send a commission to Numidia, headed by Lucius Opimius, which assigns the area bordering the Roman province of Africa to Adherbal, and the more fertile area bordering Mauretania to Jugurtha.[note 17]
Res postulare videtur Africae situm paucis exponere et eas gentis, quibuscum nobis bellum aut amicitia fuit, attingere.
The topic seems to require a brief description of Africa's position and a few words about those peoples with whom we have had relations of war or peace.
Sallust decides to interrupt the narrative to include in the work a brief ethnographic digression on northern Africa, which he considers a continent separate from Europe and Asia.[note 18] After briefly mentioning the characteristics of the territory and the men who inhabit it, he begins the actual history of human peopling in Africa, relying on the information handed down from the Libri Punici of Hiempsal:[note 19] he then narrates about the nomadic and primitive tribes of the Libyans and the Gaetuli, the first inhabitants of Africa, later supplanted by the Medes, Persians and Armenians. The digression continues with a brief mention of Phoenician breakthrough and Carthaginian rule, which Sallust states that he does not want to talk about in order to avoid talking too little about it,[17] and closes with a description of the situation at the time of the events narrated: the Romans have control over the Carthaginian cities, Jugurtha over most of the Numids and Gaetuli, and Bocchus I, father-in-law of Jugurtha himself, over the Mauri.
De Africa et eius incolis ad necessitudinem rei satis dictum.
Enough has been said about Africa and its inhabitants for the needs of the narrative.
Encouraged by Rome's favorable intervention, Jugurtha, in 113 B.C.E., resumed hostilities against Adherbal, who was determined to seize his kingdom in order to unify Numidia. The armies of the two clashed near Cirta,[note 20] and victory again came to the forces of Jugurtha: Adherbal was forced to retreat within the walls of Cirta, where the Italic negotiatores[note 21] organized resistance to the siege. Having learned of the battle, the senate sends ambassadors to Numidia, but Jugurtha, appealing to the jus gentium, succeeds in thwarting their presence, and preventing them from speaking to Adherbal; he then devotes himself to the careful organization of the siege, making use of all his strategic gifts.[18] Adherbal, meanwhile, sends a request for help to the senate, which sends a new ambassadorship to Numidia, led by Marcus Aemilius Scaurus.[note 22] The elderly senator attempts to force Jugurtha to cease hostilities, but the Numidian refuses to obey. Adherbal, then, urged on by the Italic negotiatores themselves, decides to surrender the city provided he and all other inhabitants have their lives saved; Jugurtha accepts the bargain,[note 23] but, seizing Cirta, he tortures and kills Adherbal,[note 24] and massacres all the adult citizens, both Numidian and Italic.[19]
Adherbal is the eldest[13] of Micipsa's sons, and is therefore Hiempsal's brother and cousin of Jugurtha. Unlike his brother's, his role in the story is decidedly important: after Hiempsal's untimely death, in fact, Adherbal is left alone to counter Jugurtha's expansionist aims. He is repeatedly defeated in the field by his cousin, without displaying any particular tactical skills; similarly, Sallust gives credit for the resistance of Cirta to the Italics, thus downplaying Adherbal's role there as well. He thus appears naive and inexperienced when compared to his rival Jugurtha, who already had experience. The words that Adherbal speaks addressed to the senators turn out to be important: the Numidian in fact tries to receive Rome's help by appealing to some of the ideals – primarily that of fides[note 25] – relatable to the mos maiorum: they go unheeded precisely because of the corruption and greed of the nobilitas and the moral crisis of Rome. Similarly, Adherbal also points out how Jugurtha's acts constituted an offense against the Roman maiestas,[note 26] but the senate nevertheless refused to intervene on his behalf, convinced by Jugurtha's own gifts. Rather than prone to plots and intrigue, therefore, Adherbal appears to be a ruler dedicated to a policy of peaceful coexistence, which cannot subsist in the face of Jugurtha's duplicity and the corruption of the senate.[note 27]
Qui ubi primum adolevit, pollens viribus, decora facie, sed multo maxime ingenio validus, non se luxu neque inertiae corrumpendum dedit, sed, uti mos gentis illius est, equitare, iaculari; cursu cum aequalibus certare et, cum omnis gloria anteiret, omnibus tamen carus esse; ad hoc pleraque tempora in venando agere, leonem atque alias feras primus aut in primis ferire: plurimum facere, [et] minimum ipse de se loqui.
When he became a teenager, strong and handsome in appearance, but above all of lively intelligence, he did not allow himself to be corrupted by luxury and idleness, but, according to the custom of his people, he rode, threw the javelin, and competed with his peers in running; and, while surpassing everyone in glory, he was nevertheless cherished by them all; moreover, he spent most of his time in hunting, was always the first or among the first to strike the lion and other beasts;[note 28] he was extremely active, and spoke very little about himself.
Differences between Catiline and Jugurtha and the causes of the corruption of the Roman nobilityedit
The character of Catiline can be seen as a monstrum, since he assimilates in himself several characteristics, even completely opposite to each other, which make him one of the most enigmatic characters ever in literature, along with the Numidian Jugurtha. But while the character of Catiline in the course of the De Catilinae coniuratione all in all does not undergo substantial changes in his psychic character, and in fact he is born as a character with a corrupt and evil disposition and remains so until the end, the character of Jugurtha undergoes remarkable changes in character; in fact, he is born as a young boy, heir to the Numidian throne, with a wholesome soul and full of good principles, but in the course of the Bellum Jugurthinum he changes radically, "polluted" by the negative influence on him of the then deeply corrupt Roman nobilitas, which led his character to become pravus. Both characters are the fruit of the wickedness of the senatorial class, from which they came (Catiline) or were strongly conditioned (Jugurtha); this "internal marciumen" from a social and moral point of view has its roots in 146 B.C., the year of the destruction, by the Roman armies, of Carthage. In fact, the defeat of the Punic city put an end to the so-called metus hostilis (fear of the enemy), that is, the fear that the Romans had for the Carthaginian enemies and which drove them to remain united and smoothed out internal disputes; having lacked this powerful "glue," the feelings of ambitio and avaritia of the senatorial oligarchy were exacerbated and, above all, the hostilities present between the various factiones, resulting in the bloody civil wars of the first century B.C. Indeed, there is a shift from struggles between hostes (foreign enemies, barbarians) to struggles between adversarii (political rivals, factional strife), which unleashed unprecedented waves of internal violence and decreed the inevitable end of the whole set of institutions that constituted the Roman res publica.
Hiempsal is the youngest[13] of the sons of Micipsa, brother of Adherbal and cousin of Jugurtha. His role in the Bellum Jugurthinum is entirely secondary, although it is his behavior that provides the occasional cause for the beginning of hostilities between Jugurtha and Adherbal. For he, particularly prideful by nature,[13] despises Jugurtha because he is the son of a concubine, and tries in every way to humiliate him, even siding with the abolition of the measures taken by Micipsa after his nephew's association with the throne. He thus demonstrates that he lacks the political intelligence, characteristic, on the other hand, of his father, and performs rash acts without foreseeing the consequences. Jugurtha, in fact, moved by wrath and fear,[20] decides to have him killed, and sends some of his men to the dwelling where he is: Hiempsal, rather than honorably attempting to defend himself, dies by cowardly taking refuge in the hut of a slave girl, and his head, severed, is brought to Jugurtha.
Micipsa is the eldest son of the Numidian kingMasinissa, and he rises to power along with his brothers, Gulussa and Mastanabal, upon his father's death in 148 BC. After the untimely death of his brothers, he finds himself reigning alone, and provides valuable aid to the Romans during the Third Punic War. He has two sons, Adherbal and Hiempsal I, and is the uncle of Jugurtha. In his role as a "politician," he is naturally an example of the continuous mutability that characterizes many characters in the work.
In the Bellum Jugurthinum he appears already late in life, busy thinking about who is best suited to succeed him in the role of ruler. He rejoices in the prestige of Jugurtha, confident that the latter may be suitable to lead Numidia and bring it great glory, but he soon realizes that his nephew would be in a condition of clear superiority to his sons because of his age and popularity. He then finds himself frightened by the nature of Jugurtha, greedy and prone to satisfy his own desires.[note 29] The king of Numidia then demonstrates, in his attempt to eliminate his nephew, that he is a wise politician and as careful as ever about the consequences that his acts may have: he therefore avoids having him assassinated or having him fall victim to some intrigue. Rather, he prefers to tempt fate[21] and send him to war with Numantia.[22] His plan having failed, Micipsa finds himself forced to accept the now inevitable rise of his nephew, who becomes heir along with Adherbal and Hiempsal.[note 30] Even at this juncture, however, he shows great political intelligence in being able to adapt to the different situations in which he finds himself, always avoiding creating situations of open conflict.
Finally, on his deathbed, he summons his sons and grandson to his side, and, pretending to rejoice in the successes of Jugurtha, instructs his successors on how they should behave in leading the kingdom. He invites them to concord and mutual cooperation, giving them advice that is still valid today:
Non exercitus neque thesauri praesidia regni sunt, verum amici, quos neque armis cogere neque auro parare queas: officio et fide pariuntur. Quis autem amicior quam frater fratri? Aut quem alienum fidum invenies, si tuis hostis fueris? Equidem ego vobis regnum trado firmum, si boni eritis, sin mali, imbecillum. Nam concordia paruae res crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur.
Neither army nor treasures are the defense of the kingdom, but friends, whom you cannot force with weapons nor buy with gold: they are won with respect and loyalty.[note 31] Who can ever be more friendly than a brother with his brother? Or what stranger will you find trustworthy, if you will be an enemy to your own? I give you a strong kingdom, if you will be righteous, a weak one, if you will be wicked. For in concord small states prosper, and in discord even the mightiest collapse.[note 32]
Absent from the Bellum Iugurthinum are the elements of ethnographic description that should be essential to a historiographical work. The geographical and historical digression of chapters 17-19 comes across as very approximate, especially for a historian who held the position of governor of the province of Africa for a number of years: indeed, Sallust states that he draws on written sources rather than personal observation,[note 19] and this makes his description come across as inaccurate.[24] Similarly, the portrait of Jugurtha[10] also appears rather stereotyped, and not the result of careful observation of the habits of the local people: some traits of youthful behavior and education are those typical of barbarians, and Sallust seems to draw on the Greek historiographical tradition, in particular Xenophon's Cyropaedia. The description, therefore, is in the overall reticent, vague and nebulous.[25]
At the historical level, Sallust shows little attention to the exact temporal placement of the events narrated: in fact, inaccuracies regarding chronological details are frequent,[26] and equally frequent is the use of ellipses and expressions that fill long narrative spaces otherwise devoid of action.[25]
^For other original language titles, see the Title and Narrative section.
^Sallust certainly began writing after 44 B.C., the year of Caesar's death, at a time when the first contrasts between Octavian and Antony were also emerging, destined to result in 33, two years after the historian's death, in a great civil war that would engage ethnic forces and impressive ideological currents. (Gaius Sallustius Crispus, Lidia Storoni Mazzolani (ed.). The Conspiracy of Catiline. Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli (BUR), Milan 1997, p. 212, ISBN 88-17-12072-3).
^The manuscripts of the two Sallustian monographs are divided into integri and mutili. The mutili are characterized by the presence of a long gap in the final part of the Bellum Jugurthinum, from 103, 2 (quinque delegit) to 112, 3 (ratam), later filled by a reviser who had at his disposal a manuscript of the class of the integri; both derive, nevertheless, from a common archetype. Discrepancies are due in most cases to insertions of lessons and corrections from different sources: numerous are the glosses added to the original text. Notable among the mutili are Codex Parisinus 16024 and its descendants (Bibliothèque nationale de France, 9th century) and the 11th-century Basileensis. The integri are greater in number but are also more recent; among them are the Leidensis, Vossianus Latinus, Lipsiensis, Monacensis (11th century), and Palatinus (13th century). The most important printed edition is the Editio princeps published in Venice in 1470; among modern editions the one by A. W. Ahlberg, Gothenburg, 1911-15 and by A. Ernout, Paris 1946.
^On the contrary, the protraction of the war, like the crisis situation of the state as it unfolded in the first century BCE, would both have been caused by greed on the part of the senatorial class.
^ abThe alliance with Numidia became, in fact, the real key to Rome's African policy: the presence of a friendly king allowed Rome to avoid direct military intervention, but, at the same time, also to contain any new Carthaginian expansionism.
^After repeatedly defeating Roman consular armies, the Cimbri and Teutons decided to invade Italy in 102 BC. The consul Gaius Marius was sent to counter them, who defeated the Teutons at Aquae Sextiae, and the following year routed the numerically superior forces of the Cimbri at the Campi Raudii, near Vercelli.
^The territories of the colonies were inhabited by Roman citizens, often members of the city plebs, or by soldiers on leave.
^Exemplary is the case of Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis, who, on the other hand, although deserving election to the consulship, could never obtain it, despite being even then a symbol of total morality and honesty (De Catilinae coniuratione, 54): the political system thus rejects those who fully exercise virtus.
^The praise of historiographic activity constitutes a real topos in historical proems: Polybius (1:1-2) argues that historians have always used praise, saying that the teaching of history is the best education and exercise for political activities.
^The opening sentence of the fifth chapter is a hexameter: according to E. Skard (Ennius und Sallustius: eine sprachliche Untersuchung, Oslo, 1933, p. 63), this would be a quotation from Book VI of the Annales of Quintus Ennius. Although the use of verse in prose writing was considered a thing to be avoided, the use of hexameters (reminiscent of epic poetry) in the incipits of works on historical subjects was nevertheless widespread.
^After the political failures of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, the senatorial nobilitas had held power uninterruptedly until the period of the Jugurthine War and the rise of Gaius Marius.
^Scipio, in a letter to Micipsa, comments as follows:
In the war of Numantia your Jugurtha showed truly extraordinary valor, and I am sure you will be pleased by this. He is dear to me because of his merits: I shall do all I can to ensure that he is also beloved by the Roman senate and people. I congratulate you on our friendship. You have a man worthy of you and your ancestor Masinissa.
— Sallust, Bellum Jugurthinum, 9, 2
^In fact fifteen years elapse between the return of Jugurtha from Numantia and the death of Micipsa, but Sallust does not seem to be interested in the accuracy of the historical record.
^In fact, the appellation of amicus, which had been granted to Masinissa, was not a hereditary title, and was to be considered, indeed, linked to the person receiving it (G. M. Paul, A Historical Commentary on Sallust's Bellum Iugurthinum, Liverpool 1985, p. 56). The Senate however, with a view to a policy of non-intervention in Africa, benefited greatly from friendship with Numidia.
^Thus referring to a literary topos originated in Euripides' Medea (vv. 502 ff.).
^In Adherbal's oration, Sallust emphasizes those fundamental characteristics that the nobilitas, due to its own greed, lost, causing the relentless crisis of the republic.
^Sallust insinuates that the allocation of the most fertile and richest area of Numidia to Jugurtha was the result of the corruption of Lucius Opimius; more likely, the senators wanted to secure the presence of the more loyal and less powerful Adherbal on the border with the province of Africa.
^Africa was generally little known: indeed, even Sallust states that he did not want to talk about those peoples living in regions with a torrid climate, and consequently little known. There coexisted, then, numerous theses about the geographical nature of Africa itself: Herodotus (Histories, 2, 16, 1; 4, 42, 1) and Timaeus (in Polybius, 12, 15, 7) considered it a continent in its own right. In contrast, according to Varro (De lingua latina libri XXV, 5, 5, 31), Horace (Carmina, 3, 27, 75) and Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia, 3, 5), only Europe and Asia existed. Finally, Lucan (Pharsalia, 9, 411-413) placed it in Europe, Silius Italicus (1, 195) in Asia.
^ abSallust may have read the Libri Punici during his stay in Africa or, more likely, found them as a reference for African ethnography in some other work. It is unclear whether the books were written by Hiempsal (Punic was the learned language used in Numidia) or whether, more simply, they belonged to him. According to some, in fact, it would be a Greek work on the African peoples that Sallust, to lend greater authority to the narrative, describes as a local work. (R. Oniga, Sallust and Ethnography, Pisa 1995 pp. 51 ff.)
^The geographical indication is approximate: Sallust speaks of a place not far from the sea (21, 2), while Cirta is about 70 km from the coast.
^These were merchants, financiers, landowners and shipowners. Sallust emphasizes the role they played in the story.
^Scaurus was princeps senatus, and enjoyed, therefore, very great authority.
^Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca historica, 34-35, 31) states that the city surrendered to Jugurtha out of hunger, and does not mention the role that the Italics played in convincing Adherbal to surrender.
^In the above passage, Diodorus Siculus relates that Adherbal came out of Cirta carrying an olive branch in his hand as a sign of peace. On reaching Jugurtha, he asked to have his life saved, but his cousin had his throat slit instantly.
^At the political level, it was about the relationship of loyalty that was supposed to bind Rome and its allies.
^Rome, as a superior power, could consider itself the real possessor of the kingdom of Numidia: any attack on it, therefore, had to be considered an attack on Rome and its majesty.
^Adherbal proves naively confident until the moment of his death, when Jugurtha has him killed after promising to let him live.
^Lion hunting constituted a kind of initiation rite for the young man of royal rank. (G. Cipriani, Giugurta e la caccia al leone. Una questione di etichetta, "Invigilata Lucernis" 10, 1988, pp. 75-90)
^Sallust's omniscience, in this case, can be likened to that - to quote Todorov - of one who "sees through the walls of houses in the same way he reads in his hero's mind." It is not known how he does it, but he is able to get at the innermost intentions, the most secret projects, the most unexpected reactions of the characters. (G. Cipriani, Sallustio e l'immaginario. Per una biografia eroica di Giugurta, Bari 1988, p. 17)
^Again, Sallust shows little concern for the accuracy of the historical fact: Micipsa's adoption of Jugurtha and his subsequent appointment as heir to the throne along with his cousins does not occur upon Jugurtha's own return from Numantia, but between 121 and 118 BCE.
^According to Xenophon in the Cyropaedia (8, 7, 13), Cyrus, before dying, said: The preservation of a kingdom does not depend on this golden scepter: trusted friends are the most authentic scepter.
^Seneca, in Letters to Lucilius (94, 46) states that Marcus Agrippa [...] owed much of his success to the following maxim: "Small states grow with concord; but even the largest ones go down with discord."
Scanlon, T. F. (1980). The influence of Thucydides on Sallust. Heidelberg.
Mevoli, D. (1994). La vocazione di Sallustio. Congedo.
Gaio Sallustio Crispo; Tito Livio; L. Coco (2003). L'uomo e la natura. Loffredo.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Other books
Augusto Camera; Renato Fabietti (1969). Elementi di storia antica, vol II - ROMA. Bologna: Zanichelli.
Luciano Perelli (1973). Antologia della letteratura latina. Torino: Paravia.
Lao Paletti (1974). Corso di lingua latina. I. Fonetica, Morfologia, Sintassi. Torino: Paravia.
Luca Serianni; Alfredo Castelvecchi (1989). Grammatica italiana. Italiano comune e lingua letteraria. Torino: UTET libreria, Linguistica.
Luigi Castiglioni; Scevola Mariotti (con la collaborazione di Arturo Brambilla e Gaspare Campagna) (1990). IL – Vocabolario della lingua latina. Torino: Loescher.
Lodovico Griffa (1990). Latino – Teoria. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Alfonso Traina; Giorgio Bernardi Perini (1995). Propedeutica al latino universitario. Bologna: PATRON editore.
Gian Biagio Conte (2001). Letteratura latina. Firenze: Le Monnier.
Campanini; Carboni (2003). NOMEN - Il nuovissimo Campanini Carboni. Latino Italiano - Italiano Latino. Torino: Paravia.
