Talk:Sallustius (Neoplatonist)

Untitled
Sallust and Sallustius are just variant spellings. We should come up with a better way of keeping the people of this name separate: Sallust and Sallustius should both redirect to a disambiguation page. This page should move to Sallustius the Philosopher (a very bad title, since our Sallustius was exactly not a professional philosopher; he was, rather, a statesman of pious inclinations – still, it's under the name Sallustius the Philosopher that De diis et mundo circulated). And Sallustius the historian should move to ... somewhere else.

Alternatively, Sallust and Sallustius could both direct to the historian, from whom there could be a link to Sallustius (disambiguation), from which there could be a link to Sallustius the Philosopher. QuartierLatin1968 00:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Sallustius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070509014134/http://scrimicie.smithware.ca:80/SO_new/Xtras/Roman/s.htm to http://scrimicie.smithware.ca/SO_new/Xtras/Roman/s.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge or repurpose
Nothing is really known about this Sallustius aside from his authorship of On the Gods and the Cosmos and his near-certain identity with Salutius (not Flavius Sallustius, as the article suggests). It makes more sense that the article should be repurposed and moved to that title instead, or alternatively merged. I myself lean towards merging. Avilich (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure what "repurpose" means in this context—if the two figures are the same then merger of the articles would be correct. But how certain are we that this Sallustius is the same person as Salutius?  Reading over the three articles as they currently stand, I get the impression that all three could conceivably be the same person.  The main objection to that interpretation—apart from discrepancies arising from their nomenclature—is that the article on Flavius Sallustius implies that he was in charge of Gaul in order to defend it from Constantius II at the time Salutius was campaigning in the east with Julian.  This claim appears to arise from chronological confusion (perhaps ambiguity in how he is described by Bowersock, from the way the passage is written here), since Constantius II died at the end of 361.  But in any event, whatever material indicates that the philosopher Sallustius is likely identical with Salutius but not with Flavius Sallustius needs to be added if that's how we're going to treat the articles; if there's still significant doubt about the identification, then perhaps they should remain separate.  I note that there is a short article on Sallustius, the praetorian prefect, in DGRBM (vol. III, p. 695), which has some details about the philosopher and his writing that I think are missing here (and noting their probable identity).  The editio princeps and other early editions certainly might be worth mentioning, whichever article they end up in.  P Aculeius (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By repurpose I simply mean moving this page to On the Gods and the Cosmos, the title of his theological pamphlet, since this article is more about that than the Neoplatonist Sallustius himself. We actually know nothing about him, and his very name is only 'known' because, in Photios's manuscripts of On the Gods and the Cosmos, the author is referred to as Σαλούστιος. This is the usual Greek transliteration of both Sallustius and Salutius, so it can refer to both Flavius Sallustius (consul 363) and Secundus Salutius. These two are certainly different people, as indicated in inscriptions, Ammianus's history, and all secondary sources. Concerning the uncertainty of the identification, I think these sources tip the scales in Secundus's favor. Robert Étienne (1963) argued that the Neoplatonist should be identified with Flavius, not with Secundus, and this was cautiously accepted by the PLRE in 1971. The source you already cited, Bowersock's Julian (1978), in appendix 3, rebutted Étienne's argument, concluding that the content of the treatise "makes Salutius by far the more plausible candidate", and his argument seems to have been accepted by most or all who came after him. Athanassiadi (p. 154) takes for granted that the Neoplatonist Sallustius = Secundus Salutius, as does for example Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Cornell UP, 1998), p. 62. The other sources in the revision link also follow the same line of thinking. In short, my position is: if it's decided that "Σαλούστιος" should not be merged with Salutius (as I think should be done), then his article should be moved to On the Gods and the Cosmos, because, absent any identification, the author is just an obscure and non-notable personality. Avilich (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense to me. I haven't read what Étienne or Bowersock have to say about it—but do either of them address the possibility that all three are the same person?  If the articles are merged, then as long as the question of his identity, or any uncertainty thereof is discussed in each place, then readers should still understand the issue, even if they reach the opposite conclusion.  And of course if the different things known about each one are clearly distinguished, then the merger could be undone easily at a later point, should the hypothesis be disproved.  Since I can't compare the two points of view without having read them thoroughly—and even then might not really be able to decide—I would lean towards moving the article to On the Gods and the Cosmos, but leaving this title as a redirect to it, since we're not sure which of the other two it should refer to, but it seems clear that the Neoplatonist was the author of the book.  But you're the one with the best perspective—if you're sure that it has to be Salutius, and nobody contradicts that position by the time this discussion is closed, then merge it with him instead.  P Aculeius (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They do not address the question of the identity of the three, and I think no one ever has. "Salutius" is not a cognomen, and so he's never called that in official contexts, unlike Flavius Sallustius who is always referred to by those names (e.g. ). Salutius accompanied Julian in the Persian expedition, Sallustius remained behind in Gaul. It's always taken for granted that they're different. I'll leave this here for a few days, and if no one objects, I'll probably do a merge with Salutius. Avilich (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)