Memorably and memorably elusively, Tacitus praises Sallust, rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor, ‘the brightest flower among the authors of Roman affairs’.Footnote 1 But why would he use that particular epithet?
Commentary has concentrated on the semantics of the epithet, which it ‘is difficult to render with a single word in English [and other languages, CBK], but inherent in it are the notions of “thriving” and “most vivid”—a sense, that is, that Sallust’s influence as a historian was and still is potent’.Footnote 2 The range in meaning can be gleaned from the synonyms that the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae offers by way of an approximative definition (6.1.921.6 [Kapp]): ‘fere i. q. vigens, laetus, excellens, ornatus, clarus’; it is partly borne out by a random assortment of translations of this characteristic: ‘le très brilliant historien de Rome’, ‘il famoso storico Romano’, ‘the eminent historian’.Footnote 3 Erich Koestermann—wisely, perhaps, foregoing a translation—limited himself instead to an explication: ‘das Adjectiv … enthält stärkstes Lob’.Footnote 4 No doubt.
Meanwhile, the question raised above—Why choose this particular adjective?—has received much less attention. Tacitus had other options, of course, and used them: Livius and Fabius Rusticus are eloquentissimi auctores (Agr. 10.3), Julius Caesar summus auctorum (Germ. 28.1), celeberrimi auctores (Hist. 3.51.1) are identified as sources, and Mamercus stands out as oratorum ea aetate uberrimus (Ann. 3.31.4), to name those identified by commentators. Rather more noteworthy, however, is the fact that he does not use the adjective florens of a dead person anywhere else—quite to the contrary, in fact, it often serves in antithesis to the circumstances of someone (near)dead (cf. TLL 6.1.921.8 [Kapp]: ‘fere i. q. vivens’).Footnote 5 This unusual instance, then, unparalleled in Tacitus’ work, merits note—and all the more as any reader’s attention would have been heightened by the hexametric form the laudatory phrase takes (rérum Rómanárum flórentíssimus aúctor), wherein flōrentissǐmǔs occupies ‘the most prominent position’, in fact.Footnote 6
Looking at the context, it appears that Tacitus’ mention of Sallust does not come out of the blue. As has long been recognized,Footnote 7 not only does he introduce his digression on the history of legislation (Ann. 3.25.2–28.2) with a noticeable variation on his predecessor’s introduction to his ‘Archaeology’ when he says (3.25.2):
ea res admonet ut de principiis iuris et quibus modis ad hanc multitudinem infinitam ac uarietatem legum peruentum sit altius disseram
That circumstance suggests that I should talk in more depth about the beginnings of legislature and by what means one arrived at this infinite number and variety of laws.
Its juxtaposition with the original reveals its debts and—typically TaciteanFootnote 8 —variances (Sall. Cat. 5.9):
res ipsa hortari uidetur, quoniam de moribus ciuitatis tempus admonuit, supra repetere ac paucis instituta maiorum domi militiaeque, quo modo rem publicam habuerint quantamque reliquerint, ut paulatim inmutata ex pulcherruma atque optuma pessuma ac flagitiosissuma facta sit, disserere.
Since the occasion has raised the topic of public morals, the state of affairs seems to encourage me to go back in time and talk briefly about the established practices of our forefathers in peace and in war, how they administered the state, how great it was when they passed it on, and how by gradual changes, instead of the noblest and the best, it has become the worst and the most infamous.Footnote 9
But Tacitus then continues to engage with Sallust throughout the digression, more and less conspicuously; amongst the former there is (Ann. 3.26.2):
at postquam exui aequalitas et pro modestia ac pudore ambitio et uis incedebat, prouenere dominationes multosque apud populos aeternum mansere.
But, after equality was cast aside and ambition and force became implanted instead of reserve and shame, despotisms sprang up and, in the case of many peoples, remained permanently.
This reworks various parts of the proem to the Bellum Catilinae, but most noticeably this one from the alleged autobiography (Cat. 3.3):
nam pro pudore, pro abstinentia, pro uirtute audacia, largitio, auaritia uigebant.
For instead of modesty, instead of incorruptibility, instead of merit, there flourished shamelessness, bribery, and greed.
While Sallust is not the only author with whom Tacitus engages in this section,Footnote 10 to readers familiar with his work the former is undoubtedly very much on their mind.
They might then, when reading Tacitus’ rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor, be counted upon to remember another famous detail within Sallust’s first proem (Cat. 4.2):
sed, a quo incepto studioque me ambitio mala detinuerat, eodem regressus statui res gestas populi Romani carptim, ut quaeque memoria digna uidebantur, perscribere, eo magis, quod mihi a spe, metu, partibus rei publicae animus liber erat.
Rather, I decided to return to an undertaking and pursuit from which the harmful craving for advancement had held me back, and to write up the deeds of the Roman people selectively, according to whatever seemed to me worthy of record; all the more was this my intention because I possessed a mind free from hope, fear, and partisanship.
Outlining his own and rather unprecedented approach (in scope, topic and perspective) to the writing of Roman history, Sallust announces the limitation of his enquiry and the principle of selection with a choice adverb previously unattested: carptim.Footnote 11
Tacitus himself would use the word, which experienced a blossoming at the time, as attestations in Pliny and Suetonius evince.Footnote 12 It is related to (and most likely derived from) the verb carpere, ‘to pluck, gather, pick, pull (fruit, flowers, etc.)’, which in turn is related to καρπός, ‘fruit, … usually of the fruits of the earth’.Footnote 13 It is not clear what, if anything, motivated Sallust in his choice,Footnote 14 which might perhaps be translated (along with its parenthetical explanation ut quaeque memoria digna uidebantur) as ‘in selection, with each topic plucked as it seemed worthy’. But the distribution of subsequent attestations amongst authors known to have been familiar with Sallust’s work is striking, and in their respective contexts there often are further indications of a Sallustian presence: in Pliny’s Panegyricus (25.1), the playful carptim breuiterque perstringi is combined with an allusion to another passage by the Roman historian (Iug. 19.2); similarly, Ammianus quotes Sallust more fully at 28.1.2 (carptim, ut quaeque memoria digna sunt, explanabo).Footnote 15 This may suggest that the word was readily associated with the florentissimus auctor.
It may by now be obvious that Tacitus continues Sallust’s botanical metaphor with florentissimus, and Woodman’s translation—‘brightest flower’—happily acknowledges the adjective’s literal meaning ‘de floribus, coronis …, arboribus, herbis, locis’ (TLL 6.1.920.67).Footnote 16 Amongst the instances of this literal use, of particular interest appear to be Meliboeus’ lament ‘that [his goats] will not … crop flowering lucerne and bitter willows [anymore]’ (non me pascente, capellae, | florentem cytisum et salices carpetis amaras (Verg. Ecl. 1.75–6) and Seneca’s words ‘what [the bees] have culled from the most delicate of blooming and flowering plants᾽ (quae ex tenerrimis uirentium florentiumque decerpserint, Ep. 84.4). In both instances florens and (a compositum of) carpere figure together, and rather naturally so. The latter passage is especially rewarding because of its metapoetic significance: for Seneca, in its context, recommends that writers collect inspiration from other authors just like bees, ‘as Vergil says’ (ut Vergilius noster ait), he adds with a wink before inserting a florid quotation. In other words, the florilegium (the term is post-classical, sadly; but Ovid knows of florilegae … apes, Met. 15.366) is the outcome of a discerning selection, just as a collection of poetry, in the words of Meleager’s metaphorical verse (Anth. Pal. 12.95.2), is owed to ‘the Graces [as] flower-gatherers of beauty’, κάλλϵυς ἀνθολόγοι Χάριτϵς.Footnote 17 The connection between these two words—carptim and florens—may thus be tighter even than appears at first blush.
But Tacitus added two additional features to facilitate the recognition of the allusion. On the one hand, his florentissimus also continues, as Woodman and Martin point out ad loc. (n. 4), the botanical metaphor used in the preceding sentence to describe the good fortunes of Volusius, ‘in respect of [whose means] their house thrived immensely’ (quis domus illa immensum uiguit , Ann. 3.30.1). But there is more, as Tacitus thereby also uses the same verb that Sallust had employed (as highlighted above in bold [Cat. 3.3]) in the passage preceding his programmatic statement. Such peripheral parallels strengthen the case for an intentional intertextual connection.Footnote 18 On the other hand, the phrasing of Tacitus’ praise matches in its parts and order the Sallustian statement rather closely (the typical Tacitean variations notwithstanding [see n. 8 above]): (1) rerum Romanarum (2) florentissimus (3) auctor corresponds to (1) res gestas populi Romani (2) carptim … (3) perscribere. Both authors include in their respective phrases a botanical metaphor in middle position; it is as if Tacitus thus wanted to highlight what Cairns has called ‘implicit etymologies’, viz. when an author takes advantage of word order to highlight an etymological connection.Footnote 19
In conclusion, Tacitus’ ‘stärkstes Lob’ is all the stronger, as florentissimus auctor—via the shared and variously highlighted botanical etymology—honourably alludes to his predecessor’s famous characterization of his historiographical approach, thus adding a daisy to the chain: ‘among the authors of Roman affairs’, recounted in selection, with each topic plucked as it seemed worthy, Sallust is, indeed, ‘the brightest flower’.Footnote 20
Open access
