1 See J. Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 63-86. A fuller account of the approach to enargeia in historiography sketched in this paragraph and the one that follows will be found in A. Feldherr, “The Challenge of Historiographic Enargeia and the Battle of Lake Trasimene,” in B. Reitz-Joosse, C. Mackie, and M. Makins (eds.), Landscapes of War, London, 2021, pp. 62-88.
2 See especially the recent interpretation by J. Marincola, “Polybius, Phylarchus, and Tragic History,” in B. Gibson and T. Harrison (eds.), Polybius and His World: Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank, Oxford, 2013, pp. 73-90.
3 For the self-referential potential of such internal spectacles, see A. Walker, “Enargeia and the Spectator in Greek Historiography,” TAPhA 123, 1993, pp. 353-77.
4 See esp. R. Webb, “Mémoire et imagination : les limites de l’enargeia dans la théorie rhétorique grecque,” in C. Lévy and L. Pernot (eds.), Dire l’évidence : Philosophie et rhétorique antiques, Paris et Montréal, 1997, pp. 238-9, although she speaks of rhetorical commonplaces and cultural memory rather than of targeted allusions to earlier texts.
5 A. Zangara, Voir l’histoire : Théories anciennes du récit historique, Paris, 2007, esp. pp. 7-16.
6 This synthesis of recent approaches to Sallust is especially indebted to the ideas of Batstone (e.g. “Word at War: The Prequel,” in B. Breed, C. Damon and A. Rossi (eds.), Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars, Oxford, 2010, pp. 45-72) and E. Gunderson, “The History of Mind and the Philosophy of History in Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae,” Ramus, 29, 2000, pp. 85-126. For the complex relationship between Sallust and the authors generally taken as his most important models, see esp. D. Levene, “Sallust’s Catiline and Cato the Censor,” CQ 50, 2000, pp. 170-91 and J. Grethlein, “The Unthucydidean Voice of Sallust,” TAPhA 138, 2006, pp. 299-327.
7 This is one of several passages in Sallust that seem to respond to the scene in the Syracusan harbor: others include BJ 101.11 and BC 61.8-9. See T. P. Scanlon, The Influence of Thucydides on Sallust, Heidelberg, 1980, pp. 149-51.
8 Thuc. 7.71.4: ἦν τε ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ στρατεύματι τῶν Ἀθηναίων … πάντα ὁμοῦ ἀκοῦσαι.
9 E. Koestermann, C. Sallustius Crispus, Bellum Iugurthinum, Heidelberg, 1971, p. 230.
10 BJ 73.3: litteris, qua de Metello ac Mario missae erant, cognitis; cf. TLL s.v. 3cββ.
11 J. Connolly, The Life of Roman Republicanism, Princeton, 2015, pp. 72-9 develops a highly original approach to these moments of enargeia in Sallust, regarding them as modeling his aim to ground his history in the experience of reality rather than abstract conceptualizations. “His histories do not only look beyond themselves in terms of past and future: they look outward to the world as it is lived. … They begin with the human body, …” (p. 72). The attention Connolly gives to the special qualities of Sallustian narration, with its emphases on apparently supernumerary details and the experiences of corporeality yields important insights. My own approach, however, stresses that this aspect of what his history represents exists in an uneasy struggle with an effort to see beyond bodies.
12 For references to night ending a battle in the BJ, cf. 38.8 and 58.7. Koestermann, Bellum Iugurthinum, 1971, p. 231 notes the “episches Gepräge” of the phrase itself, citing Ennius, Ann. 167; based on Livy’s own use of the expression (e.g. at 7.33.15, and six times elsewhere), he concludes that it also featured in early historiography.
13 On this pattern, see D. Levene, “Sallust’s Jugurtha: An ‘Historical Fragment’,” JRS 82, 1992, pp. 53-70.
14 See especially J. Grethlein, Experience and Teleology in Ancient Historiography: Futures Past from Herodotus to Augustine, Cambridge, 2013, pp. 1-26. My interpretation of the absence of expressed causality in Sallust’s account of this battle also owes much to Levene’s readings of Livy’s combat narratives in Livy on the Hannibalic War, Oxford, 2010, pp. 261-316.
15 C. Damon, “Déjà vu or Déjà Lu? History as Intertext,” PLLS 14, pp. 375-388.
16 For a reading of the speech as a confrontation between a tradition of oral memory, on which the nobiles’ authority depends and a “fundamentally writing-based historical analysis from a distant and impartial perspective that addresses a public readership,” see U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser, “Non sunt composita verba mea: Gespiegelte Erzählkunst in der Mariusrede des Sallust,” in D. Pausch (ed.), Stimmen der Geschichte: Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie, Berlin, 2010, pp. 157-82 (citation, p. 161).
17 Plato, Symposium, 220c. As Scanlon, The Influence of Thucydides, pp. 159-63 suggests, specifically Thucydidean prototypes may also write Sallust’s Marius as a demagogic Cleon or an aspiring Pericles.
18 Zangara, Voir l’histoire, pp. 299-300 uses this passage to demonstrate the positive sense in which images can affect the emotions directly; my argument seeks to demonstrate that Sallust insists equally on the difficulty of achieving such an effect.
19 And Webb’s explication of the mechanisms of enargeia (see above, n. 4) suggests that this phrase describes not so much the semiotic content conveyed by the imagines themselves as a knowledge or memory already present in the minds of the viewer.
20 A point also observed by Egelhaaf-Gaiser, “Non sunt composita verba mea”, p. 165. For the phenomenon, see especially H. I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford, 1996, pp. 148-9.
21 For another reading that uses the figure of Marius as a commentator on Sallustian historiography, see Egelhaaf-Gaiser, “Non sunt composita verba mea”. Where she sees the comparison with the imagines as proving the superiority of written historiography over oral memory (with which she links the imagines via the references to oral communication noted above), I see the potential insufficiency of imagines as posing a semantic challenge that Sallust’s text also confronts, the manifestation of uirtus. For another important recent argument that finds an ideal for Sallustian historiography in this account of the imagines, see J. Grethlein, “Nam quid ea memorem: The Dialectical Relationship of Res gestae and Memoria rerum gestarum in Sallust’s Bellum Jugurthinum,” CQ 56, 2006, pp. 135-48.
22 There are two problems of construction to be worked out: first the level of indirect discourse in this sequence of sentences seems ambiguous. The indirect statement in 4.6 is taken by Koestermann, Bellum Iugurthinum, p. 39 to depend on scilicet. But grammatically there is no reason that it could not be a continuation of the earlier statement. The second question is the function of eorum, which Koestermann identifies with the maiores and makes dependent on famam atque gloriam.
23 On the Romans’ consciousness of this problem, see A. A. Long, “Cicero’s Politics in De Officiis,” in A. Laks and M. Schofield (eds.), Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 212-40.
24 Koestermann, Bellum Iugurthinum, p. 37 notes both that this passage itself strongly suggests a Greek model (viz, Aristotle, Politics, 1.1.2) and that the particular use of virtus seems calqued on the generalized meaning of Greek arete.
25 Or perhaps uirtus, in a Platonic sense, can only be recalled by images rather than represented by them.