Produced by David Starner, Thomas Berger and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team
Produced by David Starner, Thomas Berger and the Online
[Illustration: Numidia (Map)]
Classical Series. Edited By Drs. Schmitz And Zumpt.
C. Sallustii Crispi
De Bello Catilinario et Jugurthino.
The text of Sallust, notwithstanding the many and excellent editions which have been published, has not yet acquired a form that can be regarded as generally adopted and established; for the number of manuscripts is great, and their differences have led critical editors to form different opinions as to which, in each case, is the correct reading, or at least the one most worthy of acceptation. This difference of opinion manifested itself especially after the edition of Gottleib Corte (Leipzig, 1724, 4to.), who in many passages abandoned the vulgate as constituted by Gruter and Wasse, and on the authority of a few manuscripts, altered the text of Sallust, on the mere supposition that his style was abrupt. Corte’s recension was adopted by many, and often reprinted; while others, especially Haverkamp, in his valuable and very complete edition (Hague, 1742, 2 vols. 4to.), returned to the vulgate. The latest critical editors of Sallust — Gerlach (Basel, 1823, &c. 3 vols. 4to., and a revised text, Basel, 1832, 8vo.) and Kritz (Leipzig, 1828, &c. 2 vols. 8vo.) — though declaring against the arbitrary proceedings of Corte, yet very often differ in their texts from each other. Between these two stands the edition of the learned critic, J. C. Orelli (Zürich, 1840), whose text forms the basis of the present edition. But besides abandoning his artificial and antiquated orthography, and restoring that which is adopted in most editions of Latin classics, we have felt obliged in many instances to give up Orelli’s reading, and to follow the authority of the best manuscripts, especially the Codex Leidensis (marked L in Haverkamp’s edition). For our explanatory notes we are much indebted to the edition of Kritz, though we have often been under the necessity of differing from him.
C. G. Zumpt.
Berlin, May, 1848.
Caius Sallustius Crispus, according to the statement of the ancient chronologer Hieronymus, was born in B. C. 86, at Amiternum, in the country of the Sabines (to the north-east of Rome), and died four years before the battle of Actium — that is, in B.C. 34 or 35. After having no doubt gone through a complete course of law and the art of oratory, he devoted himself to the service of the Roman republic at a time when Rome was internally divided by the struggle of the opposite factions of the optimates, or the aristocracy, and the populares, or the democratical party. The optimates supported the power of the senate, and of the nobility who prevailed in the senate; while the populares were exerting themselves to bring all public questions of importance before the popular assembly for decision, and resisted the influence of illustrious and powerful families, whose privileges, arising from birth and wealth, they attempted to destroy. Sallust belonged to the latter of these parties. In B.C. 52 he was tribune of the people, and took an active part in the disturbances which were caused at Rome in that year by the open struggles between Annius Milo, one of the optimates, who was canvassing for the consulship, and P. Clodius, who was trying to obtain the praetorship. Milo slew Clodius on a public road: he was accused by the populares, and defended by the optimates; but the judges, who could not allow such an act of open violence to escape unpunished, condemned, and sentenced him to exile. Pompey alone, who was then consul for the third time, was capable of restoring order and tranquillity. The position of a tribune of the people was a difficult one for Sallust: he was to some extent opposed to Milo, and consequently also to Cicero, who pleaded for Milo; but there exists a statement that he gave up his opposition; and he himself, in the introduction to his ‘Catiline,’ intimates that his honest endeavours for the good of the state drew upon him only ill-will and hatred. Two years later (B.C. 50), he was ejected from the senate by the censor Appius Claudius, one of the most zealous among the optimates. The other censor, L. Piso, did not protect either Sallust, or any of the others who shared the same fate with him, against this act of partiality. Rome was at that time governed by the most oppressive oligarchy, which was then mainly directed against Julius Caesar, who, as a reward for his brilliant achievements in extending the Roman dominion in Gaul, desired to be allowed to offer himself in his absence as a candidate for his second consulship — a desire which the people were willing to comply with, as it was based upon a law which had been passed some years before in favour of Caesar; but the optimates endeavoured in every way to oppose him, and drawing Pompey over to their side, they brought about a rupture between him and Caesar. Sallust was looked upon in the senate as a partisan of the latter, and this was the principal reason why he was deprived of his seat in the great council of the republic; and L. Piso, the father-in-law of Caesar, is said not to have opposed the partiality of his colleague in the censorship, in order to increase the number of Caesar’s partisans. When, in B. C. 49, Caesar established his right by force of arms, Sallust went over to him, and was restored not only to his seat in the senate, but was advanced to the praetorship in the year B. C. 47. Sallust served, both before and during his year of office, in the capacity of a lieutenant in Caesar’s armies. He also accompanied him to Africa in the war against the Pompeian party there, and after its successful termination, was left behind as proconsul of Numidia, which was made a Roman province. In the discharge of his duties, he is said to have indulged in extorting money from the new subjects of Rome. He was accused, but acquitted. This is the historical statement of Dion Cassius; but a hostile writer of doubtful authority mentions that, by paying 12,000 pieces of gold to Caesar (perhaps as damages for the injury done), he purchased his acquittal.
Hereupon Sallust withdrew from public life, to devote his leisure to literature, and the composition of works on the history of his native country; for, as after the murder of Caesar, in B. C. 44, the republic was again delivered over to a state of military despotism, peaceful advice was deprived of its influence. It need hardly be mentioned that Sallust, as he had qualified himself for the highest political career, and the great offices of the republic, must have been possessed of an independent property; but the statement, that he afterwards gave himself up to a life of luxury — that he purchased a villa at Tibur, which had formerly belonged to Caesar — and that he possessed a splendid mansion, with a garden laid out with elegant plantations and appropriate buildings, at Rome, near the Colline gate — is founded on the equivocal authority of a writer of a late period, who was hostile to him. It is indeed certain that there existed at Rome horti Sallustiani, in which Augustus frequently resided, and which were afterwards in the possession of the Roman emperors; but it is doubtful as to whether they had been acquired and laid out by our historian, or by his nephew, a Roman eques, and particular favourite of Augustus. The statement that Sallust married Terentia, the divorced wife of Cicero, is still more doubtful, and probably altogether fictitious. There is, however, a statement of a contemporary, the learned friend of Cicero, M. Varro, which cannot be doubted — that in his earlier years Sallust, in the midst of the party-strife at Rome, kept up an illicit intercourse with the wife of Milo; but how much the hostility of party may have had to do with such a report, cannot be decided. In his writings, Sallust expresses a strong disgust of the luxurious mode of life, and the avarice and prodigality, of his contemporaries; and there can be no doubt that these repeated expressions of a stern morality excited both his contemporaries and subsequent writers to hunt up and divulge any moral foibles in his life and character, especially as in his compositions he struck into a new path, by abandoning the ordinary style, and artificially reviving the ancient style of composition.
The historical works of Sallust are, De Bello Catilinae, De Bello Jugurthino (or the two Bella, as the ancients call them), and five books of Historiae — that is, a history of the Roman republic during the period of twelve years, from the death of Sulla in B. C. 78, down to the appointment of Pompey to the supreme command in the war against Mithridates in B. C. 66. This history was regarded by the ancients as the principal work of our author; but is now lost, with the exception of four speeches and two political letters, which some admirer of oratory copied separately from the context of the history, and which have thus been preserved to our times. The two Bella, which are preserved entire, form the contents of the present volume.
The work De Bella Catilinae formed the beginning of his historical compositions, as is clear from the author’s own introduction; but it was not written till after the murder of Caesar in B. C. 44. In it he describes the conspiracy of L. Sergius Catilina, a man of noble birth and high rank, but ruined circumstances; its discovery, and the punishment of the conspirators at Rome in B. C. 63; and its final and complete suppression in a pitched battle at the beginning of the year B. C. 62.
The Bellum Jugurthinum treats of the life of Jugurtha, who in B. C. 118, together with his cousins, Adherbal and Hiempsal, governed Numidia. Having crushed his two cousins by fraud and violence, Jugurtha afterwards maintained himself in his usurped kingdom for several years against the Roman armies and generals that were sent out against him, until in the end, after several defeats sustained at the hands of the Roman consuls, L. Metullus and C. Marius, his own ally, Bocchus, king of Mauretania, delivered him up into the hands of the Roman quaestor, L. Sulla.
In the work on the war of Catiline, Sallust reveals especially the corruption of what was called the Roman nobility, by tracing the criminal designs of the conspirators to their sources — avarice, and the love of pleasure. In the history of the Jugurthine war, he particularly exposes and condemns the system of bribery in which the leading men of that age indulged; but on the other hand, he draws a pleasing contrast in describing the restoration of military discipline by Metullus and Marius. The difficult campaigns in the extensive and desert country of Numidia, and the wonderful events of this war, also deserve the attention of the reader; the more so, as the author has bestowed the greatest care on giving vivid descriptions of them.
Among the writings of Sallust, which have been transmitted to us in manuscripts, and are printed in the larger editions of his works, there are two epistles addressed to Caesar, containing the author’s opinions and advice regarding the new constitution to be given to the republic, after the defeat of the optimates and their faction by the dictator. They are written in his own peculiar style: the first contains excellent ideas and energetic exposures of the general defects and evils in the state, as well as plans for remedying them; the second adds some proposals regarding the courts of justice, and the composition of the senate, the utility and practicability of which appear somewhat doubtful. The authenticity of these epistles, therefore, is still a matter of uncertainty. Lastly, there are two Declamations (declamationes), the one purporting to be by M. Cicero against Sallust, and the other by Sallust against Cicero; but both are evidently unworthy of the character and style of the men whose names they bear, and are justly considered to be the production of some wretched rhetorician of the third or fourth century of the Christian era. Such declaimers made use of all possible reports that were current respecting the moral weaknesses of the two men, and respecting an enmity between them, of which history knows nothing, and which is contradicted by our author himself, by the praise he bestows, in his ‘Catilinarian War,’ upon Cicero.
Sallust’s character as an historian, and his grammatical style, have been the subjects of contradictory opinions even among the ancients themselves — both his own contemporaries, and the men of succeeding ages. Some condemned his introductions, as having nothing to do with the works themselves; found fault with the minute details of the speeches introduced in the narrative; and called him a senseless imitator, in words and expressions, of the earlier Roman historians, especially of Cato. Others praised him for his vivid delineations of character, the precision and vigour of his diction, and for the dignity which he had given to his style by the use of ancient words and phrases which were no longer employed in the ordinary language of his own day. But however different these opinions may appear, there is truth both in the censure and in the praise, though the praise no doubt outweighs the censure; and the general opinion among the later Romans justly declared primus Romana Crispus in historia. It is obvious that it is altogether unjust to say that his introductions are unsuitable, and that the speeches he introduces are inappropriate: for an author must be allowed to write a preface to make an avowal of his own sentiments; and the speeches are inseparably connected with the forms of public life in antiquity: they are certainly not too long, and express most accurately, both in sentiment and style, the characters of the great men to whom the author assigns them. We have no hesitation in declaring that the speeches in the Catiline and Jugurtha, as well as those extracted from the Historiae, are the most precious specimens of the kind that have come down to us from antiquity.
As regards the grammatical style and the imitation of earlier authors, for which Sallust has been blamed by some, and praised by others, it must be observed that he is the first among the classical authors extant in whose works we perceive a difference between the refined language of public life, such as we have it in Cicero and Caesar, and a new and artificially-formed language of literature. Cicero and Caesar wrote just as a well-educated orator of taste spoke: after the death of Caesar, oratory began to withdraw from the active scenes of public life; and there remained few authors who, following the practical vocation of an orator, though at an unfavourable epoch, yet observed the principle which is generally correct — that a man ought to write in the same manner in which well-bred people speak. But most men of talent who devoted themselves to written composition for the satisfaction of their own minds, or for the instruction of their contemporaries, created for themselves a new style, such as was naturally developed in them by reading the earlier authors, and through their own relations to their readers and not hearers. Livy clung to the language, style, and the full-sounding period of the oratorical style, though even he in many points deviated from the natural refinement of a Caesar and a Cicero; but Sallust gave up the oratorical period, divided the long-spun, full-sounding, and well-finished oratorical sentence into several short sentences; and in this manner he seemed to go back to the ancients, who had not yet invented the period: but still there was a great difference between his style, in which the ancient simplicity was artificially restored, and the genuine ancient sentence formed without any rhetorical art. He wrote without periods, because he would not write otherwise, and not because he could not; he divided the rhetorical period into separate sentences, because it appeared to him advantageous in his animated description of minute details; and he wrote concisely, because he did not want the things to fill up his sentences which the orator requires to give roundness and fulness to his periods. He states in isolated independent sentences those ideas and thoughts which the orator distributes among leading and subordinate sentences; but he did all this consciously, as an artist, and with the conviction that it was conducive to historical animation. Tacitus was his imitator in this artificial historical style; and notwithstanding all his well-deserved praise, it must he admitted that the blame cast upon Sallust attaches in a still higher degree to Tacitus. It is a fact beyond all doubt, that Sallust introduced into the language of literature antiquated forms, words, and expressions; and this arose from a desire to recall with the ancient language also the ancient vigour and simplicity. But even this revival of what was ancient is visible only here and there, and all such words and phrases might be exchanged for others and more customary ones, without depriving Sallust of his essential characteristics; for these consist in a vivid perception of the important moments of an action, in placing them in strong contrasts, to excite his readers, and in the effect produced by isolated sentences simply put in juxtaposition without the artifice of a polished and intricate period.
To give our young readers some preparatory information about certain frequently-recurring peculiarities of Sallust’s style, we may remark that the omission of the personal pronoun in the construction of the accusative with the infinitive, as well as the omission of the auxiliary verb est, and the frequent use of the infinitive instead of a dependent clause — for example, hortatur dicere, res postulat exponere, conjuravere patriam incendere, and many similar expressions — arise from his desire to be brief and concise. Among his antiquated forms of words, we may mention die for diei, the singular plerusque, quis for quibus, senati for senatus; dicundi, legundi, &c. for dicendi, legendi; intellego for intelligo, forem for essem, fuere for fuerunt; the use of the past participles of deponent verbs in a passive sense — as adeptus, interpretatus. Antiquated words, or words used in an antiquated sense, are — supplicium for preces, scilicet for scire licet; antiquated expressions are — fugam facere for fugere, habere vitam for agere vitam, and other phrases with habere. The frequent use of mortales for homines, aevum for aetas, and subigere for cogere, gives to his style somewhat of a poetical colouring. As far as grammatical construction is concerned, there is a tendency to archaisms in the use of quippe qui with the indicative; in the frequent application of the indicative in subordinate sentences in the oratio obliqua; and in some other points which we shall explain in short notes to the passages where they occur. An intentional disturbance of rhetorical symmetry is perceptible in the change of corresponding particles; — for example, instead of alii in the expression alii-alii, we find pars or partim; instead of modo in the expression modo-modo, we find interdum, and similar variations. But all these differences from the ordinary language contain in themselves sufficient grounds of explanation and excuse, and are by no means so frequent as to render the language of Sallust unworthy of the merited reputation of being classical.
Footnotes for Introduction
 This strange account is found in Hieronymus’s first work against Jovinianus, towards the end; and it becomes still more strange by the addition, that Terentia was married a third time to the orator Messalla Corvinus (who was consul with Augustus, B. C. 91): — Illa (Terentia) interim conjunx egregia, et quae de fontibus Tullianis hauserat sapientiam, nupsit Sallustio, inimico ejus, et tertio Messallae Corvino: et quasi per quosdam gradus eloquentiae devoluta est. It almost appears as if in this tradition it had been intended to mark three phases in the style of Roman oratory, for Sallust was twenty years younger than Cicero, and Messalla nearly as many years younger than Sallust.
 It has indeed been said that Quinctilian, who wrote about the year 95 after Christ, cites passages from these Declamations; but critical investigation has shown that these passages are interpolations, and are found only in the worst manuscripts.
C. Sallustii Crispi
1. Omnes homines, qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus, summa ope niti decet, ne vitam silentio transeant veluti pecora, quae natura prona atque ventri obedientia finxit. Sed nostra omnis vis in animo et corpore sita est; animi imperio, corporis servitio magis utimur; alterum nobis cum dis, alterum cum beluis commune est. Quo mihi rectius videtur ingenii quam virium opibus gloriam quaerere et, quoniam vita ipsa qua fruimur brevis est, memoriam nostri quam maxime longam efficere. Nam divitiarum et formae gloria fluxa atque fragilis est, virtus clara aeternaque habetur. Sed diu magnum inter mortales certamen fuit, vine corporis an virtute animi res militaris magis procederet. Nam et prius quam incipias consulto, et ubi consulueris mature facto opus est. Ita utrumque per se indigens, alterum alterius auxilio eget.
2. Igitur initio reges (nam in terris nomen imperii id primum fuit), diversi pars ingenium, alii corpus exercebant; etiamtum vita hominum sine cupiditate agitabatur, sua cuique satis placebant. Postea vero quam in Asia Cyrus, in Graecia Lacedaemonii et Athenienses coepere urbes atque nationes subigere; libidinem dominandi causam belli habere, maximam gloriam in maximo imperio putare, tum demum periculo atque negotiis compertum est in bello plurimum ingenium posse. Quodsi regum atque imperatorum animi virtus in pace ita ut in bello valeret, aequabilius atque constantius sese res humanae haberent, neque aliud alio ferri, neque mutari ac misceri omnia cerneres. Nam imperium facile his artibus retinetur, quibus initio partum est. Verum ubi pro labore desidia, pro continentia et aequitate libido atque superbia invasere, fortuna simul cum moribus immutatur. Ita imperium semper ad optimum quemque a minus bono transfertur. Quae homines arant, navigant, aedificant, virtuti omnia parent. Sed multi mortales dediti ventri atque somno, indocti incultique vitam sicuti peregrinantes transiere; quibus profecto contra naturam corpus voluptati, anima oneri fuit. Eorum ego vitam mortemque juxta aestimo, quoniam de utraque siletur. Verum enimvero is demum mihi vivere atque frui anima videtur, qui aliquo negotio intentus praeclari facinoris aut artis bonae famam quaerit. Sed in magna copia rerum aliud alii natura iter ostendit.
3. Pulcrum est bene facere rei publicae; etiam bene dicere haud absurdum est; vel pace vel bello clarum fieri licet; et qui fecere et qui facta aliorum scripsere, multi laudantur. Ac mihi quidem, tametsi haudquaquam par gloria sequitur scriptorem et actorem rerum, tamen in primis arduum videtur res gestas scribere; primum quod facta dictis exaequanda sunt, dehinc quia plerique, quae delicta reprehenderis, malivolentia et invidia dicta putant; ubi de magna virtute atque gloria bonorum memores, quae sibi quisque facilia factu putat, aequo animo accipit, supra ea veluti ficta pro falsis ducit.
Sed ego adolescentulus initio sicuti plerique studio ad rem publicam latus sum, ibique mihi multa adversa fuere. Nam pro pudore, pro abstinentia, pro virtute, audacia, largitio, avaritia vigebant. Quae tametsi animus aspernabatur, insolens malarum artium, tamen inter tanta vitia imbecilla aetas ambitione corrupta tenebatur: ac me, quum ab reliquorum malis moribus dissentirem, nihilo minus honoris cupido eâdem qua ceteros famâ atque invidiâ vexabat.
4. Igitur ubi animus ex multis miseriis atque periculis requievit et mihi reliquam aetatem a re publica procul habendam decrevi, non fuit consilium socordia atque desidia bonum otium conterere; neque vero agrum colendo aut venando, servilibus officiis, intentum aetatem agere; sed a quo incepto studioque me ambitio mala detinuerat, eodem regressus statui res gestas populi Romani carptim, ut quaeque memoria digna videbantur, perscribere; eo magis, quod mihi a spe, metu, partibus rei publicae animus liber erat. Igitur de Catilinae conjuratione quam verissime potero paucis absolvam: nam id facinus in primis ego memorabile existimo sceleris atque periculi novitate. De cujus hominis moribus pauca prius explananda sunt, quam initium narrandi faciam.
5. Lucius Catilina, nobili genere natus, fuit magna vi et animi et corporis, sed ingenio malo pravoque. Huic ab adolescentia bella intestina, caedes, rapinae, discordia civilis grata fuere, ibique juventutem suam exercuit. Corpus patiens inediae, algoris, vigiliae, supra quam cuiquam credibile est. Animus audax, subdolus, varius, cujus rei libet simulator ac dissimulator, alieni appetens, sui profusus, ardens in cupiditatibus; satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum. Vastus animus immoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat. Hunc post dominationem Lucii Sullae libido maxima invaserat rei publicae capiundae, neque id quibus modis assequeretur, dum sibi regnum pararet, quidquam pensi habebat. Agitabatur magis magisque in dies animus ferox inopia rei familiaris et conscientia scelerum, quae utraque his artibus auxerat, quas supra memoravi. Incitabant praeterea corrupti civitatis mores, quos pessima ac diversa inter se mala, luxuria atque avaritia, vexabant. Res ipsa hortari videtur, quoniam de moribus civitatis tempus admonuit, supra repetere ac paucis instituta majorum domi militiaeque, quomodo rem publicam habuerint quantamque reliquerint, ut paulatim immutata ex pulcherrima pessima ac flagitiosissima facta sit, disserere.
6. Urbem Romam, sicuti ego accepi, condidere atque habuere initio Trojani, qui Aenea duce profugi sedibus incertis vagabantur, cumque his Aborigines, genus hominum agreste, sine legibus, sine imperio, liberum atque solutum. Hi postquam in una moenia convenere, dispari genere, dissimili lingua, alius alio more viventes, incredibile memoratu est quam facile coaluerint. Sed postquam res eorum civibus, moribus, agris aucta, satia prospera satisque pollens videbatur, sicuti pleraque mortalium habentur, invidia ex opulentia orta est. Igitur reges populique finitimi bello temptare, pauci ex amicis auxilio esse; nam ceteri metu perculsi a periculis aberant. At Romani domi militiaeque intenti festinare, parare, alius alium hortari, hostibus obviam ire, libertatem, patriam parentesque armis tegere. Post, ubi pericula virtute propulerant, sociis atque amicis auxilia portabant, magisque dandis quam accipiundis beneficiis amicitias parabant. Imperium legitimum, nomen imperii regium habebant; delecti, quibus corpus annis infirmum, ingenium sapientia validum erat, rei publicae consultabant; hi vel aetate vel curae similitudine patres appellabantur. Post, ubi regium imperium, quod initio conservandae libertatis atque augendae rei publicae fuerat, in superbiam dominationemque convertit immutato more annua imperia binosque imperatores sibi fecere; eo modo minime posse putabant per licentiam insolescere animum humanum.
7. Sed ea tempestate coepere se quisque magis extollere magisque ingenium in promptu habere. Nam regibus boni quam mali suspectiores sunt, semperque his aliena virtus formidolosa est. Sed civitas incredibile memoratu est adepta libertate quantum brevi creverit; tanta cupido gloriae incesserat. Jam primum juventus, simul ac belli patiens erat, in castris per laborem usu militiam discebat, magisque in decoris armis et militaribus equis quam in scortis atque conviviis libidinem habebant. Igitur talibus viris non labos insolitus, non locus ullus asper aut arduus erat, non armatus hostis formidolosus; virtus omnia domuerat. Sed gloriae maximum certamen inter ipsos erat: sic se quisque hostem ferire, murum ascendere, conspici, dum tale facinus faceret, properabat; eas divitias, eam bonam famam magnamque nobilitatem putabant; laudis avidi, pecuniae liberales erant; gloriam ingentem, divitias honestas volebant. Memorare possem, quibus in locis maximas hostium copias populus Romanus parva manu fuderit, quas urbes natura munitas pugnando ceperit, ni ea res longius nos ab incepto traheret.
8. Sed profecto fortuna in omni re dominatur; ea res cunctas ex libidine magis quam ex vero celebrat obscuratque. Atheniensium res gestae, sicuti ego aestimo, satis amplae magnificaeque fuere, verum aliquanto minores tamen quam fama feruntur. Sed quia provenere ibi scriptorum magna ingenia, per terrarum orbem Atheniensium facta pro maximis celebrantur. Ita eorum, qui ea fecere, virtus tanta habetur, quantum ea verbis potuere extollere praeclara ingenia. At populo Romano nunquam ea copia fuit, quia prudentissimus quisque maxime negotiosus erat; ingenium nemo sine corpore exercebat; optimus quisque facere quam dicere, sua ab aliis bene facta laudari quam ipse aliorum narrare malebat.
9. Igitur domi militiaeque boni mores colebantur, concordia maxima, minima avaritia erat, jus bonumque apud eos non legibus magis quam natura valebat. Jurgia, discordias, simultates cum hostibus exercebant, cives cum civibus de virtute certabant; in suppliciis deorum magnifici, domi parci, in amicos fideles erant. Duabus his artibus, audacia in bello, ubi pax evenerat, aequitate seque remque publicam curabant. Quarum rerum ego maxima documenta haec habeo, quod in bello saepius vindicatum est in eos, qui contra imperium in hostem pugnaverant, quique tardius revocati proelio excesserant, quam qui signa relinquere aut pulsi loco cedere ausi erant; in pace vero, quod beneficiis quam metu imperium agitabant, et acceptâ injuriâ ignoscere quam persequi malebant.
10. Sed ubi labore atque justitia res publica crevit, reges magni bello domiti, nationes ferae et populi ingentes vi subacti, Carthago, aemula imperii Romani, ab stirpe interiit, cuncta maria terraeque patebant, saevire fortuna ac miscere omnia coepit. Qui labores, pericula, dubias atque asperas res facile toleraverant, his otium, divitiae optandae aliis oneri miseriaeque fuere. Igitur primo pecuniae, deinde imperii cupido crevit; ea quasi materies omnium malorum fuere. Namque avaritia fidem, probitatem ceterasque artes bonas subvertit; pro his superbiam, crudelitatem, deos negligere, omnia venalia habere edocuit. Ambitio multos mortales falsos fieri subegit, aliud clausum in pectore, aliud in lingua promptum habere, amicitias inimicitiasque non ex re, sed ex commodo aestimare, magisque vultum quam ingenium bonum habere. Haec primo paulatim crescere, interdum vindicari; post, ubi contagio quasi pestilentia invasit, civitas immutata, imperium ex justissimo atque optimo crudele intolerandumque factum.