Sallustius, in his celebrated abstract of the Punic records of Thempsal, makes the following remark: "Nam de Carthagine silere melius puto, quam parum dicere, _quoniam alio properare tempus monet_."--_De Bello Jugurthino_, c. xix. ed. Allen. Does not this sound as if the history has been read out to an assembly? There is strong presumptive evidence in favour of such a supposition, in the tradition of Herodotus having read aloud his history at the Grecian Games. Besides, it was a common practice of Cicero and Plinius the Younger to read out their orations and treatises. I cannot help thinking that the histories of Sallustius were first delivered as lectures, _taken down by reporters_[2] employed by himself for the purposes of preserving his words, as he had only notes before him, fairly transcribed from the stenographic character, and then, _but not till then_, made a subject of closet-study. This, I think, is easy of proof, and instances may be adduced (the expression I have quoted is one) where the lecturer peeps out. The interpolated state in which this classic has come down to us is indeed sad: there is scarcely a chapter throughout the Catiline and Jugurtha where some transcriber has not been at work, sticking in words and sometimes whole sentences, which, I am astonished to see, have escaped the notice of Cortius, Allen, and the older editors. I said above that Sallustius made his lectures or orations on the history of his country a subject of closet study. He did so, and in an eminent degree. His conciseness, clearness (when relieved from the burden of interpolation), and usual impartiality, point to a careful and spiritual study of Thucydides; but he could not attain to an equal degree of sweetness as the Greek historian, on account of the general character of their several languages differing. As far, however, as Roman could approach to Greek, I conceive Sallustius has approached to Thucydides. Tacitus (whose mind was impregnated with, and steeped in Sallustius) rarely enounces a sentiment in his numerous works the origin of which is not referable to the latter author. It requires some careful thought sometimes, before the passages can be traced; but they _are_ traceable; and if we had the whole works of Sallustius, I doubt not but that we should be able to trace them all much more easily. Perhaps--I say it without stress, mind; it is a mere suggestion--it would be possible to restore, or rather connect some of the historical fragments of Sallustius by means of the works of Tacitus. When we find a sentiment of Sallustius half expressed in the fragment, and trending towards the conclusion arrived at by Tacitus, may we not, as we know how completely the latter had imbibed the thoughts of the former, reasonably suppose the remainder of the passage to be parallel; and, following out the idea, restore it, taking into consideration the difference of the mode of expression in the two eras? And this may hold