Iris Samotta's book (a revised version of her German dissertation, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, 2003) presents a comparative analysis of Cicero's and Sallust's historical views and, in particular, their ideas about the Roman state and its political institutions. As far as I am aware, this has not previously been attempted in a book-length study, which in itself makes this book worthy of attention. According to the introduction, the aim of the book is to compare Cicero's and Sallust's proposals for political reform presented in the periods 57–49 b.c. and 52 b.c. onwards respectively (17), and the ways in which they employ history to argue for their proposals, in light of the crisis of the Republican political system in the 50s and 40s b.c. (9). S. focuses on Cicero's and Sallust's expressions in relation to three periods — early times, ideal time (middle Republic), and decline (late Republic) — and places them in the authors’ personal and political contexts (13). S. intends to show that the foundation of their proposals is not only dependent on their individual political experiences and daily political necessities, but is also to a large extent coloured by their ideas about an ideal res publica, ideas which result from their historical views (9).

The sources on which the analysis is based are mainly Cicero's De oratore, De republica, De legibus and De officiis, and, for Sallust, the two monographs, Catilina and Jugurtha, the Histories and the two letters to Caesar. This presents a problem as scholarship has yet to decide whether the two letters to Caesar are genuine. In the introduction, S. stresses the importance of the letters for her analysis but avoids taking up the discussion of their authenticity. Instead she refers to the modern literature on the topic, arguing that since nothing proves that they are not by Sallust and the latest scholarship tends towards accepting them as genuine, she will use them as such (18 with n. 22). S. then goes on to say that her analysis of (1) Sallust's developing view of history and (2) the connection between his political opinion and the proposals for reform should be seen as a contribution to the debate about the letters in order to convince the sceptic of their authenticity (ibid.). This argument seems circular and therefore weakens her case based on the letters. In this connection, it is unfortunate that S. is not consistent in stating clearly where the view(s) presented in the letters differ from those of the other Sallustian works, making it difficult to assess the validity of the overall argument.

S. approaches her questions systematically. Ch. 1 introduces Cicero's background and the works deemed relevant for the analysis. In ch. 2, S. looks at Cicero's and Sallust's views of history in general by analysing their views on the state and its citizens in both past and present. This is followed in the long third chapter by an analysis of their proposals for reform with particular focus on the tribunate, agrarian legislation, judicial reform, reform of magistracies, Senate and censorship. Her main conclusions (summed up at the end of each analysis (Fazit) and collected in the epilogue or Schluβbetrachtung) are that while Sallust depersonalizes history, Cicero focuses on individuals from the past (especially 102–3, 128–31, 171–4, 230, 256); both see the political crisis as a symptom of moral decline (141–4, 151–4, 257), but their different political experiences result in different proposals for change (307–8, 361–2). S. argues that Sallust's proposals are pragmatic, Cicero's slightly less so, yet had the proposals been carried out the Republican system could have survived the civil wars of the 40s and 30s b.c. In S.'s interpretation, Sallust wants to widen out the senatorial base to build a stronger sense of community, whilst Cicero wants to limit senatorial access to truly good men only in a meritocratic system (308, 340–9, 363–79). Finally, she argues that Sallust is interested in a narrative about the Roman state, but Cicero is more interested in instrumentalizing the historical narrative in order to legitimize his theoretical views (144, 332–6).

This final conclusion leads us to the overall focus of S.'s work: she analyses Cicero's and Sallust's views of the Roman state, its political system and various interest groups in both reality and ideal, and she discusses (briefly) the reasons behind their views and their methods of expressing such views. The main title, Das Vorbild der Vergangenheit (the past as model/example) led me to expect, perhaps unjustly, more analysis of the use of past exempla and the past in general, yet this is not the main focus of the book. The focus is rather the Geschichtsbild und Reformvorschläge bei Cicero und Sallust (historical view and proposals for reform in Cicero and Sallust), the subtitle, with stress on the proposals for reform and the occasional use of historical exempla, personalized or depersonalized, to argue for such proposals. A reason for this focus could be that Sallust's depersonalization of Roman history makes it difficult to compare directly his use of historical exempla with Cicero's use.

The book is a revised version of the author's dissertation. It would be unfair to criticize it for being what it is; nevertheless the structure of the book makes it repetitive at times and some of the descriptions of Cicero's and Sallust's narratives could have been trimmed. More discussion of the reasons behind their views, aside from their personal experiences, would have been valuable too; only in the epilogue (Schluβbetrachtung) are further reasons and broader perspectives considered. But her analyses of historical exempla and themes such as Cicero's flexible use of Romulus (157–69) and Cicero's projection of contemporary issues and actions back to earlier times (282–9) are thorough and illuminating. S.'s book is a welcome, useful and, so far, the only extensive comparison of Cicero's and Sallust's views on the Roman state.