SALLUST's predilection for the historic infinitive is well-known. He usually employs several in succession. On the other hand examples are not lacking of historic infinitives used singly and there seems to be a feature common to some of them; one action described by a single infinitive is in strong contrast with the other described by a finite verb immediately preceding or succeeding. For example, (nostri maiores) neque victis quicquam praeter iniuriae licentiam eripiebant. at hi contra, ignavissumi homines, per summum scelus omnia ea sociis adimere, quae fortissumi viri victores reliquerant (Cat. 12, 4-5) . (Catilina) ad hoc maledictis increpabat omnis bonos, suorum unum quemque nominans laudare (Cat. 21, 4). veterani pristinae virtutis memores comminus acriter instare, illi haud timidi resistunt (Cat. 60, 3). Further the historic infinitive is used sometimes by the author in a passage where some contrast apparently exists; e.g. neque tamen Catilinae furor minuebatur, sed in dies plura agitare (Cat. 24, 2). (At Rome Catiline's preparations for insurrection resulted in failure) interea Manlius in Etruria plebem sollicitare (Cat. 28, 4). In these instances an antithesis in thought is to be regarded as strengthened by that in form between the historic infinitive and the finite verb. This view pushed farther induces one to hold that because of this formal contrast Sallust generally uses the historic infinitive whenever he prefers to throw one action, dramatic or not, into relief against the others.
