intro
Among those who have attempted to clear him of the charges usually brought against hin, are Miller,C. Sallustius Crispus, Leipzig, 1817. Wieland,Ad. Hor. Sat., i. 2, 48. and Roos;Einige Bemerk, ub. den Moral Char. des Sallust. Prog. Giessen., 1788, 4to. See Frotscher's note on Le Clerc's Life of Sall., init. who are strenuously opposed by GerlachVit. Sall., p. 9, seq. and Loebell.Zur Beurtheilung des Sall., Breslau, 1818. The points on which his champions chiefly endeavor to defend him, are the adventure with Fausta, and the spoliation of Numidia. Of the three, Miller is the most enterprising. With regard to the affair of Fausta, he sets himself boldly to impugn the authority of Varro or Gellius, on which it chiefly rests; and his reasoning is as follows: That such writers as Gellius are not always to be trusted; that Gellius often quoted from memory; that he cites old authors on the testimony of later authors; that he speaks of Varro, fide homo multâ et gravis, as if he were a cotemporary that needed commendation, not the well-known Varro whose character was established; that the Varro of Gellius may therefore be a later Varro, whose book, "Pius," or "De Pace," may have been about Antoninus Pius, under whom Gellius lived, and who may have been utterly mistaken in what he said of Sallust; and that, consequently, the passage in Gellius is to be suspected. Respecting the plunder of Numidia, his arguments are, that the province was given to Sallust to spoil, not for himself, but for Cæsar; that of the money obtained from it, the chief part was given to Cæsar; and that, consequently, Cæsar, not Sallust, is to bear the blame for what was done.
