The two assigned excerpts are the most famous parts of the BC, the preface and the debate between Caesar and Cato on the punishment of the conspirators. For another part of this debate, look at Cicero, In Catilinam 4.

Even though there is (probably) only a gap of nine years (51-42 BCE) between De re publica and BC, the two texts are worlds apart, separated by civil war, the assassination of Julius Caesar, and the beginnings of the Second Triumvirate (November 43) and the proscriptions. Sallust's ethical ideas and his ideal of the Roman Republic do not seem very far from Cicero's, but the language in which he expresses them are very different: Sallust is in many respects an anti-Ciceronian, and many people have thought (perhaps rightly) that his choice of subject--the depiction of the most famous event in Cicero's career with so little emphasis on Cicero--is not without point.

In reading Sallust, you should consider not only his style but his choice of form and topic. How is this work different from earlier Roman historiography? What is his relationship to his stylistic model (at least one of them), Cato? To Thucydides? What reasons does he give in the preface for undertaking this work--and how is it similar to, or different from, Cicero's in De oratore? What are his views of the causes of Decline and its consequences and possible remedies? (For this, look not only at the preface, but at the comparison of Caesar and Cato at the end of the debate.) And why is the conspiracy of Catiline so significant?

In reading the debate itself, look at the characterization of the two speakers: how much does what Sallust writes reflect the characters of the two men? Does it reflect their position at the time of the debate (63) or at the time of writing? Which one does Sallust prefer, or is one supposed to be able to tell?

Bibliography:

There is a very useful review of recent scholarship on Sallust in C. Kraus and A. Woodman, Latin Historians (Greece and Rome Surveys, 1997), which raises many of the most interesting questions. Beyond that, there are two useful books in English:

D. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust (1961)

R. Syme, Sallust (1964)

Earl concentrates on Sallust's vocabulary (it was a dissertation); Syme on historical background and context. It is Syme at his most Symean, and at times unreadable, but as with all Syme, it is worth working at. The only really good brief introduction to the style is unfortunately in German, by Kurt Latte.