Lucullus

by Lee Fratantuono

  109.Scholars do well to note that the Fimbrians were, by and large, more than happy to sign up for an extended tour of duty with Pompey. They may well have been little more than opportunists at this point; they despised Lucullus and his expectation of work and duty, but they had no interest in returning to Italy to till the soil. A new commander always meant a hope of donatives and prizes; the question of whether Pompey could do any better than Lucullus against Mithridates and Tigranes may not have been of paramount concern. Some of the more thoughtful Fimbrians may have also realized that the kings were not nearly as powerful as Lucullus’ enemies might have wanted to project.

  110. Vita Luculli XXXVI.1.

  Chapter 6: Early Retirement?

  1. Pro Lege Manilia IV.9.10.

  2. Pro Lege Manilia VIII.20.

  3. Lucullus’ virtus is also cited by Florus, the second-century AD epitomist who refers to this quality of the general in his account of the Bellum Mithridaticum (I.40), where he notes that the King of Pontus was subdued by the felicitas or good fortune of Sulla, the virtus or courage of Lucullus and the magnitudo or greatness of Pompey (a play on his title Magnus) – a powerful, ascending tricolon of homage to the three great generals. Lucullus’ work at the time of the siege of Cyzicus is also detailed by Florus in complimentary fashion. Virtus implies both courage and manliness, and perhaps also endurance and perseverance; Lucullus shows no signs of having succumbed to impatience in his long sojourn in Asia, in the face of enemies who were masters at taxing the patience of their adversaries. If anything, it could be said that Lucullus deserved better soldiers – or better abilites in dealing with the sort of men he had under his command.

  4. Pro Lege Manilia IX.25.

  5. Pro Lege Manilia IX.26.

  6. J.R. King, M. Tulli Ciceronis: Pro Lege Manilia (Oxford, 1917), commentary note ad 26.

  7. Vita Luculli XXXVI.1–2.

  8. There is a splendid account of the meeting of Lucullus and Pompey by Greenhalgh, 1980, pp.106–07, with commentary on the character of the former. ‘Lucullus played the last, unhappy scene in the drama in which he had held the stage for so long.’

  9. XXXVI.46.

  10. Dio XXXVII.49.3–5. Lucullus’ insistence was ultimately futile; cf. XXXVIII.7.5.

  11. ‘There was some justice in Lucullus’ demands, for Pompey had so far disposed with any senatorial advice, but the real purpose behind them was more sinister – to prolong discussion as long as possible and to delay final acceptance indefinitely’, Leach, 1978, p.120.

  12. For the attitude of the ‘professional’ army of Lucullus’ day, see Keaveney, 2009, pp.238–42. Keaveney correctly places the ultimate emphasis on the relative unpopularity of Lucullus by the end of the campaign.

  13. On the Memmian prosecutions of Marcus Lucullus and (soon after) Lucius, see Gruen, 1974, pp.266–67.

  14. On scythe-bearing chariots, note McGushin, 1994, pp.74–75.

  15. The captured ships were no doubt also an implicit challenge to the Pompeian achievements at sea. Lucullus, of course, had done more than his fair share at sea; he had won significant naval victories and had done much to ensure the security of Roman sea lanes during troubled times in both the Mithridatic Wars and under the pirate scourge.

  16. See Keaveney, 2009, pp.184–86, for the propaganda use of the god Hercules by Lucullus in celebrating his victory.

  17. Vita Luculli XXXVIII.1.

  18. Skinner, 2011, p.63, finds the story of incest rather improbable. ‘It suited Lucullus’ vengeful purpose well, for it blackened his former brother-in-law with the stain of precocious degeneracy; at the same time, it imputed aristocratic exclusivity and was therefore an underhanded thrust at a proud patrician house … Whether factual or not (in my opinion, almost certainly not), charges of incest soon became indelibly attached to the Claudian name’; cf. p.56, ‘While the accusation was primarily intended to blacken her brother’s reputation, as we shall see, and most likely had no basis in fact, it became firmly attached to the family name; in his subsequent attacks on Clodius, Cicero widened it to include all three sisters and even the two older brothers.’

  19. There is a letter of Cicero to Atticus (I.18.3 Shackleton Bailey) that preserves the stinging remark that after having treated Marcus Lucullus like Menelaus, Memmius decided to attack both Menelaus (i.e., Marcus Lucullus) and Agamemnon (i.e., Lucius Lucullus) with the same contempt. The adulteries of Memmius are thus regarded as if they were pathetic attempts to recall the world of the Trojan War.

  20. Cf. Telford, 2014, p.248.

  21. Ep. Ad Quint. Frat. 14.3 Shackleton Bailey.

  22. Ernst Badian’s entry on Lucullus in the Oxford Classical Dictionary takes it for granted that Lucullus was an Epicurean: ‘He was an able soldier and administrator, an Epicurean, a lover of literature and the arts, and a generous patron. But he lacked the easy demagogy that was needed for success in both war and politics in his day.’

  23. The fact that the Athenians would set up a statue in her honour on the Acropolis in 49 is a token of the esteem in which they held her father. But we know practically nothing about Licinia, let alone her ultimate fate. See further Keaveney, 2009, pp.181–82, with dismissal of the theory that Licinia was actually the daughter of Clodius. Keaveney concludes that the statue was a sign of honour for Lucullus, who was evidently hailed as a benefactor of the Greeks; certainly Lucullus’ reputation as a phihellene endured in Athens long after the departure of Sulla. Whatever the case of children, it is clear that Lucullus derived no political benefit from his union with Clodia – on the contrary, the marriage brought him nothing but grief. For the statue and inscription (Inscriptiones Graecae/IG II.2 4233), see also Skinner, 2011, p.57. For a rather different reception of Lucullus in Greek culture, we may compare the evidence of the letters ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana (71.72), where Greeks are criticized for taking Roman names such as Lucullus, Lucretius, Lupercus and Fabricius (where the names of Lucullus and Lucretius, we might note, are closely associated).

  24. Lucius Lucullus – the son of Lucius Lucullus, that is – is sometimes confused with his cousin, the son of Marcus (cf. Osgood, 2006, pp.100–01). See further Keaveney, 2009, p.182. The cousin is apparently mentioned at Valerius Maximus 4.7.4, as part of his commentary on friendships; he was slain on the order of Mark Antony after Philippi for having been a partisan of Brutus and Cassius (republican sympathies ran in the family).

  25. Keaveney, 2009, p.183 n.17, comments on the admirable self-restraint of Lucullus, if the story of Servilia’s affair with Memmius were true.

  26. On this, see further L. Fratantuono, A Reading of Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2015), pp.467 ff.

  27. Vita Luculli XLI.2–3; XLII.4–5.

  28. The most convenient edition of the speech is that of Elaine Fantham, Cicero’s Pro L. Murena Oratio (Oxford: American Philological Association, 2013), with introduction, Latin text and commentary.

  29. See further here Gruen, 1974, pp.267–68.

  30. Pro Archia VIII.21.

  31. There is a detailed appraisal of the problem, with full commentary on the poems, in A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page, The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip, Volume II: Commentary and Indexes (Cambridge, 1968), pp.432 ff. No fragments survive of any epic poetry on Lucullus’ deeds; we can be sure, however, that Archias composed many verses.

  32. Pro Archia III.5.

  33. Pro Archia V.11.

  34. We do possess a letter of Cicero to Atticus (I.16.15 Shackleton Bailey, dated to 61 BC; see further the editor’s commentary ad loc.) in which Archias is cited for having finished his Greek poem on the Luculli, and for commencing a new work on the Metelli. This is the last we hear of Archias from contemporary sources; some have speculated that Cicero’s reference confirms that an acquittal must have been won, and some have argued that Archias died in 61. But we have no proof for either conclusion. Archias also commenced a poem on Cicero’s own exploits, a work that was apparently left unfinished – no doubt at le
ast in part a reward for Cicero’s splendid oratorical defence. On the larger problem of Roman citizenship and related questions posed by the trial, see Sherwin-White, 1939/1973. Cicero had hoped for a treatment of his consulship by Archias; on this note Dugan, 2005, p.46: ‘That Archias does not reciprocate Cicero’s artfully crafted speech with a poem in the consular’s honour, but instead offers his services to the Luculli and Metelli (those figures responsible for the legal basis of his case for naturalization), underscores both the collapse of the Pro Archia’s self-fashioning strategies and Cicero’s misplaced confidence in the power of literary polish to compete on the same level as long-standing political alliances.’

  35. The best overview of the evidence for the incest charge is Appendix II, ‘Clodius’ Incest’, in R.A. Kaster, Cicero: Speech on Behalf of Publius Sestius (Oxford, 2006), pp.409 ff. For ancient citations, note Cicero, Pro Milone 73; Plutarch, Vita Caesaris 10.5. The charge cannot be definitively adjudicated; for how Clodia would not participate in the public mourning for her brother after his death (possibly because of the humiliation she had suffered on account of Cicero’s accusations against her), see Skinner, 2011, pp.72–73.

  36. For an appraisal of the Ciceronian evidence for the scandal, see especially A. Lintott, Cicero As Evidence: A Historian’s Companion (Oxford, 2008), pp.254 ff. Helpful too is the article of J.W. Tatum, ‘Cicero and the Bona Dea Scandal’, Classical Philology 85.3 (1990), pp.202–08; also D.F. Epstein, ‘Cicero’s Testimony at the Bona Dea Trial’, Classical Philology 81.3 (1986), pp.229–35. ‘To mention Bona Dea is to invoke the name of Publius Claudius Pulcher, Clodius, who interrupted the celebration in December 62 BCE and was tried for the offence … in the spring of 61 BCE’, S. Takács, Vestal Virgins, Sibyls, and Matrons: Women in Roman Religion (Austin: The University of Texas Press, 2008), pp.98 ff.

  37. For a good example of the attempt of some to rehabilitate Clodius, with particular emphasis on the Bona Dea episode and the charge of mutiny, see D. Mulroy, ‘The Early Career of P. Clodius Pulcher: A Re-Examination of the Charges of Mutiny and Sacrilege’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 118 (1988), pp.155–78.

  38. Plutarch, Vita Caesaris X.5; cf. Skinner, 2011, p.64.

  39. Vita Luculli XXXIX.1.

  40. Cf. here K. von Stackelberg, The Roman Garden: Space, Sense, and Society (New York/London: Routledge, 2009), with material on what the author considers the ‘apolitical’ nature of the gardens as places not where political colleagues and allies could gather, but as a haunt of quasi-Epicurean retreat and reflection. Von Stackelberg also considers the political significance of the construction of the gar-dens; the issue of rivalry with Pompey and his own private/public spaces; and the question of Lucullus’ alleged retirement from public life. It is important to note, however, that we have absolutely no evidence for the assertion that Lucullus was an Epicurean; on this important point, note Keaveney, 2009, p.211 n.52. Those who would subscribe to the view that Lucullus was an Epicurean would argue that in the latter stages of his life, he had decided that the pursuit of honour and glory was an act of folly; of course the blind pursuit of riches would also have been problematic for an Epicurean, and Lucullus’ critics seem ready enough to indict him for that vice in the final decade or so of his life.

  41. Cf. Tacitus, Annales 11.26–38; also K.T. von Stackelberg, ‘Performative Space and Garden Transgressions in Tacitus’ Death of Messalina’, The American Journal of Philology 130.4 (2009), pp.595–624. On the gardens of Lucullus as the eventual locus of ‘Julio-Claudian melodrama’, note R. Evans, Utopia Antiqua: Readings of the Golden Age and Decline at Rome (New York/London: Routledge, 2007), p.203. It is conceivable that at least some of the Lucullan reputation derived from more sordid events that took place in the gardens long after his death; the Messalina episode may have been an especially tawdry case of posthumous guilt by association for Lucullus. Indeed, we may note the 1981 novel of John A. Schmidt, The Gardens of Lucullus, a work of historical fiction that concerns itself with the reign of Caligula. Schmidt’s novel extends its coverage of Julio-Claudian Rome into the Claudian years, and associates Messalina with the assassination plot that spelled the end for Caligula; one may well think that Lucullus would be disgusted at the association of his name and his gardens with these more salacious, scandalous episodes of Roman history (especially this fictionalized account thereof).

  42. Vita Luculli XXXIX.4–5.

  43. Vita Luculli XXXIX.3.

  44. Plutarch does note that there were some who said that these words were indeed spoken with reference to Lucullus, though not by Cato.

  45. Today, in the French Quarter of New Orleans, Louisiana, there is a ‘Lucullus Culinary Antiques, Art and Objects’ that specializes in dining-related objets d’art from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – a popular place for lovers of food culture and haute cuisine. From ancient anecdote to contemporary antique shops, Lucullus’ reputation for gastronomic luxury has perdured. The New York City-based ‘Lucullan Foods’ – which offers corporate events, ‘curated dinners’ and the services of a private chef – advertises that it ‘collaborates with select artists who wish to engage their audience with food in an art context’. Promotional materials highlight ‘Lucullus … Roman general and consul, famous for his luxurious banquets’. We do well to remember in all of these survivals of Lucullan decadence that we know precious little about what one might find on Lucullus’ Roman table; Keaveney, 2009, p.198 n.7, speculates that something like the ‘pastry eggs’ of Petronius, Satyrica 33, might have been typical, and he argues that the cherry must have been prominent in Lucullan desserts. But Keaveney does well to note that we have no definitive evidence that Lucullus’ guests even enjoyed his feasts.

  46. A fascinating article on the life of Lucullus, of particular interest for the question of what exactly happened to cause his apparent decline and fall, is the paper ‘Lucullus Daemoniac’ by Graham J. Wylie in L’Antiquité classique 63 (1994), pp.109–19.

  47. On the lengths to which pietas could drive a man like Lucullus, see Keaveney, 2009, pp.234–35: ‘When his own or his family’s position or honour was threatened then Lucullus proved implacable. This mild mannered man conducted a feud with the Servilii that was said to be the most intense in Roman history, and pursued Pompey relentlessly for the wrongs done him in Asia. It is behaviour like unto that of his friend Sulla.’

  48. 792B.

  49. Moralia 785F, for commentary on which see Keaveney, 2009, p.210, who notes the Loeb’s questionable rendering of one of the charges as ‘sexual intercourse in the daytime’, and the possible influence of the inaccurate translation on modern thought about Lucullus’ alleged hedonistic tendencies. Daytime leisure activities were of course to be frowned upon, but the charge is perhaps not as salacious as some might have it. Plutarch’s passage indicts Lucullus in the context of an argument between Pompey and him (likely the Galatia conference), where Lucullus is said to have upbraided Pompey for a pursuit of office and honour that was unsuited to his age – with the retort from the younger man that it was more inappropriate and out of season for an older man to pursue luxury when he should be pursuing the work of his office and duty.

  50. III.30–31.

  51. Controversiae IX.2.19.

  52. VI.274e-f; cf. XII.543a.

  53. A useful volume on the problem of luxury and the Greek attitude thereto = R.J. Gorman and V.B. Gorman, Corrupting Luxury in Ancient Greek Literature (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2014), with material relevant to an understanding of the views of Plutarch and others on the problem.

  54. Cf. Dix, T. Keith, ‘The Library of Lucullus’, Athenaeum 88 (2000), pp.441–64.

  55. Vita Luculli XLII.4–5.

  56. Cf. here T.P. Hilman, ‘When did Lucullus Retire?’, Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 42.2 (1993), pp.211–28.

  57. XXXVII.49–50.1.

  58. Vita Pompei XLVI.3 ff.

  59. Vita Pompei XLVIII.1–3.

  Chapter 7
: Twilight Time

  1. Cf. Greenhalgh, 1980, pp.222 ff., with full text of the most relevant Ciceronian evidence.

  2. Vita Luculli XLII.7–8.

  3. XXXVIII.9.

  4. Cf. J.W. Tatum, The Patrician Tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1999), p.112.

  5. Keaveney, 2009, p.216, argues that the inclusion of Pompey’s name was evidence in itself that Lucullus was still a force to be reckoned with – but the name of the old general might have been all too easy to supply given past, all too public history.

  6. We may note here in passing that Lucullus does not make particularly many appearances in Cicero’s extant correspondence.

  7. For the theory that Lucullus succumbed to Alzheimer’s disease, see Keaveney, 2009, pp.222–23. Speculation is all we have, though Gerard Lavery is right to consider the theory intriguing.

  8. 792B-C.

  9. XXV.25.

  10. Love potions or philtres are discussed by Cyril Bailey in the introduction to his edition of Lucretius, Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex (Oxford, 1947), Vol.I, pp.8–11. The truth is that we do not know the origin of the Lucretian story; it may rest ultimately on a misintepretation of a passage in the imperial Roman poet Statius, Silvae II.7.76 docti furor arduus Lucreti, where furor may refer to poetic madness (i.e., inspiration). Our earliest certain source for the story is Saint Jerome’s additions to Eusebius’ chronicles, or in other words a testimony that classical scholars would consider late (not to say inherently unreliable). In the absence of further evidence, we cannot be sure if Statius’ furor or ‘madness’ is to be taken literally. If Callisthenes administered an amatorium to Lucullus, it is not clear exactly what the point was; either the freedman wanted Lucullus to fall madly in love with himself, or he was seeking to have Lucullus fall in love with someone else. Plutarch seems to point to a less salacious rationale, namely that Callisthenes simply wanted greater control over Lucullus and his affairs, and in general a more pliant patron. There certainly was a market in such potions and drugs in the late Republic, and there is no good reason to dismiss the story out of hand. Given the penchant of Mithridates for poisons, there is an added reason, however, for the story to have been invented; one might imagine that some at Rome would have commented on the seeming irony of Lucullus’ being driven mad by a potion, given the long years he spent in pursuit of the ‘poison king’. On the theory that Jerome misread the Lucullus story and took it to be of the poet Lucretius, see, e.g., L. Wilkinson, ‘Lucretius and the Love-Philtre’, The Classical Review 62.3 (1949), pp.47–48; also A. Betensky, ‘Lucretius and Love’, The Classical World 73.5 (1980), pp.291–99. It is certainly possible that the Lucullus story gave rise to the Lucretius, but the tale of the poculum amatorium arguably fits better with Lucretian lore than Lucullan, unless one is to conclude that the story arose as part of the general report and condemnation of the alleged decadence of Lucullus’ last days. More generally on love potions, with reference to the alleged circumstances surrounding Lucullus’ death, see M.W. Dickie, Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World (London/New York: Routledge, 2001), p.133; cf. also C.A. Faraone, ‘Agents and Victims: Constructions of Gender and Desire in Ancient Greek Love Magic’, in M.C. Nussbaum and J. Sihvola (eds), The Sleep of Reason: Erotic Experience and Sexual Ethics in Ancient Greece and Rome (Chicago, 2002), pp.405–06. Lucullus is called ‘the model of prodigals and voluptuaries’ in part on the claim of the amatorium by ‘P.L. Jacob’ in his History of Prostitution among All the Peoples of the World: From the Most Remote Antiquity to the Present Day, Volume I, p.342.