_Sallust_

All these Roman historians no doubt were worthy gentlemen, but they
create an atmosphere of suspicion. When reading them, you suspect that
they are not always telling the whole truth. I read Sallust and feel
that he is lying; he has composed his narrative like a novel.

In the _Memorial de Sainte Helene_, it is recorded that on March
26, 1816, Napoleon read the conspiracy of Catiline in the _Roman
History_. The Emperor observed that he was unable to understand what
Catiline was driving at. No matter how much of a bandit he may have
been, he must have had some object, some social purpose in view.

The observation of this political genius is one which must occur to all
who read Sallust's book. How could Catiline have secured the support of
the most brilliant men of Rome, among them of Julius Caesar, if his only
plan and object had been to loot and burn Rome? It is not logical.
Evidently Sallust lies, as governmental writers in Spain lie today when
they speak of Lerroux or Ferrer, or as the republican supporters of
Thiers lied in 1871, characterizing the Paris Commune.

_Tacitus_

Tacitus is another great Roman historian who is theatrical,
melodramatic, solemn, full of grand gestures. He also creates an
atmosphere of suspicion, of falsehood. Tacitus has something of the
inquisitor in him, of the fanatic in the cause of virtue. He is a man of
austere moral attitude, which is a pose that a thoroughgoing scamp finds
it easy to assume.