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