century of the Christian era.[2] 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.

[2] 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.

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