This work covers the history of the text of the invectives of Sallust against Cicero and of Cicero against Sallust. Though these speeches seem unsophisticated to some, they are in fact of considerable importance. The question of the authenticity of both invectives, especially of the invective against Cicero, considered in the book diachronically, has long troubled scholars, commencing with Quintilian's quotation from the text as though it were authentic. This dispute continues down to our own time. In all probability, both invectives are a product of the rhetorical schools of Rome, as students at such schools might have been set the task of writing a speech against Cicero imitating Sallust, or of responding to Sallust in the style of Cicero. Thus, we possess a sample of rhetorical school exercises, preserved due to their similarities to the prototypes on which they were modelled. The work covers: the full manuscript tradition of the text and also the history of the changes which arose during its transmission, the history of the printed text and the text itself with an apparatus criticus and also a translation. This work should be of interest to classicists, philologists interested in the history of medieval and renaissance texts, and also to those erudite readers concerned with rhetorical style and the functioning of the rhetorical schools of Rome.

Presents the first full-length, systematic study of the reception of Cicero's speeches in the Roman educational system.

Sallust’s Histories and Triumviral Historiography explores the historiographical innovations of the first century Roman historian Sallust, focusing on the fragmentary Histories, an account of the turbulent years after the death of the dictator Sulla. The Histories were written during the violent transition from republic to empire, when Rome's political problems seemed insoluble and its morals hopelessly decayed. The ruling triumvirate of Octavian, Mark Antony, and Lepidus created a false sense of hope for the future, relentlessly insisting that they were bringing peace to the republic. The Histories address the challenges posed to historians by both civil war and authoritarian rule. What does it mean, Sallust asks, to write history under a regime that so skillfully manipulates or even replaces facts with a more favorable narrative? Historiography needed a new purpose to remain relevant and useful in the triumviral world. In the Histories, Sallust adopts an analogical method of historiography that enables him to confront contemporary issues under the pretext of historical narrative. The allusive Histories challenge Sallust's audience to parse and analyze history as it is being "written" by the actors themselves and to interrogate the relationship between words and deeds. The first monograph in any language on the Histories, this book offers comprehensive reading of Sallust’s third and final work, featuring discussion of a wide selection of fragments beyond the speech and letters, set-pieces that have generally been studied in isolation. It offers a valuable resource for academics and postgraduates working on ancient historiography and Latin literature more generally; it will also be of interest to ancient historians working on the late Roman Republic. With English translations of all Greek and Latin passages, this book will also be useful for undergraduate and graduate courses on historiography, Latin literature, and Roman history.

The correspondence of Cicero (106-43 BCE) with his brother, Quintus, and with Brutus is a window onto their world. Two invective speeches linked with Cicero are probably anonymous exercises. The Letter to Octavian likely dates from the third or fourth century CE. The Handbook of Electioneering was said to be written by Quintus to Cicero. Cicero's letters to his brother, Quintus, allow us an intimate glimpse of their world. Vividly informative too is Cicero's correspondence with Brutus dating from the spring of 43 BCE, which conveys the drama of the period following the assassination of Julius Caesar. These are now made available in a new Loeb Classical Library edition. Shackleton Bailey also provides in this volume a new text and translation of two invective speeches purportedly delivered in the Senate; these are probably anonymous ancient schoolbook exercises but have long been linked with the works of Sallust and Cicero. The Letter to Octavian, ostensibly by Cicero but probably dating from the third or fourth century CE, is included as well. Here too is the Handbook of Electioneering, a guide said to be written by Quintus to his brother, an interesting treatise on Roman elections.

Using a variety of cases from history and today's life, the book examines character attackers targeting the private lives, behavior, values, and identity of their victims. Numerous historical examples show that character assassination has always been a very effective weapon to win political battles or settle personal scores.

Many new and fruitful avenues of investigation open up when scholars consider forgery as a creative act rather than a crime. We invited authors to contribute work without imposing any restrictions beyond a willingness to consider new approaches to the subject of ancient fakes, forgeries, and questions of authenticity. The result is this volume, in which our aim is to display some of the many possibilities available to scholarship. The exposure of fraud and the pursuit of truth may still be valid scholarly goals, but they implicitly demand that we confront the status of any text as a focal point for matters of belief and conviction. Recent approaches to forgery have begun to ask new questions, some intended purely for the sake of debate: Ought we to consider any author to have some inherent authenticity that precludes the possibility of a forger's successful parody? If every fake text has a real context, what can be learned about the cultural circumstances which give rise to forgeries? If every real text can potentially engender a parallel history of fakes, what can this alternative narrative teach us? What epistemological prejudices can lead us to swear a fake is genuine, or dismiss the real thing as inauthentic? Following Splendide Mendax and Animo Decipiendi?, this is the latest installment of an ongoing inquiry, conducted by scholars in numerous countries, into how the ancient world - its literature and culture, its history and art - appears when viewed through the lens of fakes and forgeries, sincerities and authenticities, genuine signatures and pseudepigrapha. How does scholarship tell the truth if evidence doesn't? But fabula docet: The falsum does not simply make the great, annoying stone before the door of the truth (otherwise this here would really be a "council of antiquarians and paleographers"). The falsum makes a delicate, fine tissue. It allows the verum to shine through, in nuances and reliefs that were less noticeable without its counterpart, really tied at the head. And, treated differentiated, it becomes even itself perlucidum, shines out with "hidden values."