Sallust's Bellum Catilinae: A New Translation

Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C.

Class Struggle and Social Praxis
in Republican Rome

with a new translation, text, and commentary
of
Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae
and
Cicero’s Orationes In Catilinam I-II

(revised Nov. 1, 2008)

By E. H. Campbell

THIRD EDITION

© E. H. Campbell 2008
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Inopibus Press: Seattle
inopibus [at] gmail.com
http://inopibuspressseattle.blogspot.com

To Dr. Paul R. Dixon

Έλάττους τε γὰρ ’όντες [30] ‘όπως ’ίσοι ’ω̃σι στασιάζουσι,
καὶ ’ίσοι ’όντες ‘όπως μείζους.
They being subservient would be revolutionaries so as to be equals;
and they being equals, so as to be mighty.
(The Politics 5.1302a29-30)



This version of the manuscript Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. is based on Sallust's Bellum Catilinae. The reader may wish to read that before reading Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. as essential background. Nevertheless whole text of the Bellum Catilinae is included within Discontents. In between Sallust’s narrative the four speeches of Cicero, In Catilinam I-IV, appear at what would have been their appropriate time in the chronology and interrupt Sallust’s narrative but I have only completed the translation of the first two of Cicero's speeches so there is a long portion of untranslated Latin in the middle of the document.

The general thrust of the argument presented in Discontents is a refutation of Judith Kalb’s thesis that Lucius Sergius Catiline was ‘a Roman Bolshevik.’ But whereas Kalb, as a professor of the Russian language, neither understands any of Sallust’s writing, or any Latin and, moreover, as a philosophical enemy of the former Soviet Union, she has not represented either the Bolshevik tradition, or that of L. Sergius Catiline, truthfully. Thus Judith Kalb, in my opinion, has made a gross distortion of history which amounts to historical revisionism. In short, Kalb is an academic who wrote and published about things that she did not completely understand which, again in my opinion, amounts to academic misconduct since nothing in the life of Lenin could justly be compared to the acts of a villain like L. Sergius Catiline. Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. not only resituates both Catiline and Lenin back to their proper places in history by separating them, but also puts Kalb into her proper historical place and me into mine as well. In the end, however, what Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. truly demonstrates is that those within the institutions can only think and act the way people in those institutions can think and act and that those outside them can do but the same.

It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe that one rendering of these works in to English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But here is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with both the best of the old and the best of the new, and, consequently, I believe that one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with my work alone. Many of the standard translation are quite good. The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries c.1885-1925, is indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. And we must but ask: how is it that what once was of such great importance that countless scholars, the best and the brightest, were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library has all but vanished from American higher education? The enormous amount of dedication, energy, and resources demands its recompense.

On the other hand, I must confess that J. C. Rolf’s translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved with out his work ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision that I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust’s epigrams among my own words in the manner that he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary. But if the whole of the Bellum Catilinae, then why not the whole of Cicero’s Orationes in Catilinam I-IV, since both texts are first and primary things, the very things to be taken in hand. I therefore have felt the need to include a complete Latin text, translation, and commentary of that document as well.
The parts of Sallust’s narrative about the founding of the city and the decline of its morals, have been substantively and creatively employed before the center piece, the Narrative, ‘ο ’εξηγητικός, which itself begins with the First Conspiracy and relates the entire Bellum Catilinae thence from to the defeat of Catilinae at Pistora, the argumentum ad baculum, in January of B.C. 62. Therefore I resolved to include Sallust’s preface to Bellum Catilinae earlier on in the Overview, ‘ο λόγος and, moreover, to repeat a number of things from both the Overview, the Narrative later on in the Argument, ‘ο συλλογισμὸς and the Conclusion, ή κριτικός. Aware of the repetitive nature of this practice, after delivering the Narrative I supply in brief citations from both the Bellum Catilinae and In Catilinam in English, which I have done, where I believe necessary, only to punctuate important philosophical points pertaining to the truth or fallacy of certain arguments lain down by the opposition. Thus a few of the things you have read before the Argument and the Conclusion one read before. One shall have, nevertheless, read the whole Bellum Catilinae and the four orations of Cicero against Catiline, in both English and Latin, by the time one has completed the whole work.

I intend to render a translation of the four speeches Cicero and to place these speeches in between Sallust’s narrative, at the proper time when they should have occurred, thus creating a sort of narrative intextus, or πεπλεγμενοι: an interweaving of texts including remarks by a number of Latin and Greek authors, like Plutarch and Cassius Dio, to name a few.

There remains, however, a great many Greek and Latin translations ahead of me, and I sincerely hope to have the time to get around to rendering those texts as well; but there are, one must recall, many renderings of the Greek and Latin library which are fine unto themselves; and those ought to be known to every student of the Classics. Finally, it is critical that every student memorize the Greek alphabet which will give them the ability, at the very least, to find Greek words in the Lexicon.

EDWARD H. CAMPBELL
MISSOULA, MONTANA
OCTOBER 30, 2008

I. Prŏoemium

This version of the manuscript Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. is based on Sallust's Bellum Catilinae. The reader may wish to read that before reading Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. as essential background. Nevertheless whole text of the Bellum Catilinae is included within Discontents. In between Sallust’s narrative the four speeches of Cicero, In Catilinam I-IV, appear at what would have been their appropriate time in the chronology and interrupt Sallust’s narrative but I have only completed the translation of the first two of Cicero's speeches so there is a long portion of untranslated Latin in the middle of the document.

The general thrust of the argument presented in Discontents is a refutation of Judith Kalb’s thesis that Lucius Sergius Catiline was ‘a Roman Bolshevik,’ but the fact that Catiline was compared to Jesus Christ by Blok, and through Blok Kalb, is not without issue. But whereas Kalb, as a professor of the Russian language, neither understands any of Sallust’s writing, or any Latin and, moreover, as a philosophical enemy of the former Soviet Union, she has not represented either the Bolshevik tradition, or that of L. Sergius Catiline, truthfully. Thus Judith Kalb, in my opinion, has made a gross distortion of history which amounts to historical revisionism. In short, Kalb is an academic who wrote and published about things that she did not completely understand which, again in my opinion, amounts to academic misconduct since nothing in the life of Lenin could justly be compared to the acts of a villain like L. Sergius Catiline. Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. not only resituates both Catiline and Lenin back to their proper places in history by separating them, but also puts Kalb into her proper historical place and me into mine as well. In the end, however, what Discontents at Rome: 63 B.C. truly demonstrates is that those within the institutions can only think and act the way people in those institutions can think and act and that those outside them can do but the same.

It has been my intention neither to lead the reader to believe that the translations of the great Hellenists and Latinists of Oxford and Harvard are wholly inadequate nor that they beyond reproach; nor have I intended to lead the reader to believe that one rendering of these works in to English is altogether much better than all others and, on account of that, be relied upon alone. Ezra Pound said somewhere that every generation requires a new translation. But here is more to it than this: it is necessary for the student to become acquainted with both the best of the old and the best of the new, and, consequently, I believe that one should familiarize oneself with as many of these translators, textual critics, and commentators as they have time for, not just with my work alone. Many of the standard translation are quite good. The work done by the English grammarians, authenticating texts, translating the Greek and Latin library, codifying Greek and Latin grammar, and certifying the Latin and Greek dictionaries and lexicon, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries c.1885-1925, is indubitably of singular importance to the history of Western thought. And we must but ask: how is it that what once was of such great importance that countless scholars, the best and the brightest, were employed for well neigh forty years standardizing this library has all but vanished from American higher education? The enormous amount of dedication, energy, and resources demands its recompense.

On the other hand, I must confess that J. C. Rolf’s translation of the Bellum Catilinae has not suited my purposes. Indeed, in his translation of the Bellum Catilinae, he took, in my opinion, far too many liberties with respect to the exactness of grammar and syntax; though the gist of what it says in Latin truly is there, and indubitably I could not have achieved what I have achieved with out his work ahead of me, indeed I often relied on it for the gist of Sallust; but it did not have the precision that I have required. And on account of the fact that I seldom agreed with his translation, and therefore would not render Sallust’s epigrams among my own words in the manner that he chose; I concluded that a complete translation of the Bellum Catilinae by my own hand was necessary. But if the whole of the Bellum Catilinae, then why not the whole of Cicero’s Orationes in Catilinam I-IV, since both texts are first and primary things, the very things to be taken in hand. I therefore have felt the need to include a complete Latin text, translation, and commentary of that document as well.
The parts of Sallust’s narrative about the founding of the city and the decline of its morals, have been substantively and creatively employed before the center piece, the Narrative, Narratio, ‘ο ’εξηγητικός, which itself begins with the First Conspiracy and relates the entire Bellum Catilinae thence from to the defeat of Catilinae at Pistora, the ad baculum argumentum , in January of B.C. 62. Therefore I resolved to include Sallust’s preface to Bellum Catilinae earlier on in the Overview, Praetexto, ‘ο λόγος and, moreover, to repeat a number of things from both the Overview, the Narrative later on in the Argument, Argumentum, ‘ο συλλογισμὸς and the Conclusion, Discerno, ή κριτικός. Aware of the repetitive nature of this practice, after delivering the Narrative I supply in brief citations from both the Bellum Catilinae and In Catilinam in English, which I have done, where I believe necessary, only to punctuate important philosophical points pertaining to the truth or fallacy of certain arguments lain down by the opposition. Thus a few of the things you have read before the Argument and the Conclusion one read before. One shall have, nevertheless, read the whole Bellum Catilinae and the four orations of Cicero against Catiline, in both English and Latin, by the time one has completed the whole work.

I intend to render a translation of the four speeches Cicero and to place these speeches in between Sallust’s narrative, at the proper time when they should have occurred, thus creating a sort of narrative intextus, or πεπλεγμενοι: an interweaving of texts including remarks by a number of Latin and Greek authors, like Plutarch and Cassius Dio, to name a few.

There remains, however, a great many Greek and Latin translations ahead of me, and I sincerely hope to have the time to get around to rendering those texts as well; but there are, one must recall, many renderings of the Greek and Latin library which are fine unto themselves; and those ought to be known to every student of the Classics. Finally, it is critical that every student memorize the Greek alphabet which will give them the ability, at the very least, to find Greek words in the Lexicon.

EDWARD H. CAMPBELL
MISSOULA, MONTANA
NOVEMBER 14, 2008