32 SETTLEMENT OF ASIA MINOR. The view of Mommsen and T. Frank, that Sulla deprived the publicani of the right to farm the taxes of Asia (based on Cicero, ad Q. fr. 1. 1. 33) and that it was restored by Pompey (Cic. Verr. 3.6. 12), has been rejected by Rice Holmes, RR. I, 395, and P. A. Brunt, Latomus, 1956, 17 ff. How a loyal city’s privileges were confirmed and even extended is seen in a letter that Sulla wrote to Stratonicea, in which he quotes the resolution of the Senate taken on this matter in 81 (for a translation of this document, OGIS 441 and R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents of the Greek East, 22, see Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ., 1, 337 f.). See also similar letters from Sulla and Cn.Cornelius Dolabella to Thasos: Sherk, 20,21. Sulla also responded favourably to an appeal from the Guild of Actors of Iona and the Hellespont, the Artists of Dionysus, and renewed their earlier privileges including exemption from public and military service. The favour was later confirmed by the Senate in 81: copies of the SC, together with Sulla’s covering letter, were set up in various towns; that in Cos survives in part (see M. Segre, Riv. Fil., 1938, 253 ff., R. K. Sherk, Historia, 1966, 211 ff. and Documents, 49; and for a translation Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ., 342). Sulla was greatly interested in the stage and stage-folk, including a friendship with the great actor Roscius: see further S. Garton, ‘Sulla and the Theatre’, Phoenix, 1964, 137 ff. [p. 65]
33 THE SAMNITES. E. T. Salmon has shown (Athenaeum, 1964, 160 ff.; Samnium, 377 ff.) that the Social War did not just merge into the Civil War, but that the Samnites had been at peace during Sulla’s absence from Italy. But they were deliberately excluded from the treaty which Sulla signed with ‘Italic peoples’ in the winter of 83–82 and by driving them into hostility he could transform his personal war into a national crusade against Rome’s old enemy. [p. 66]
34 PRAENESTE. For the topography see R. Gardner, Journal of Philology, 1919, pp. 1 ff. The temple of Fortuna there was reconstructed by Sulla. This famous sanctuary, built on the hillside on terraced slopes, is a most imposing monument. Some of the later buildings that covered it were destroyed by bombing during the last war, and the whole complex now displays something of its earlier magnificence. See F. Fasolo and G. Gullini, Il santuario della Fortuna Primigenia a Palestrina (1953). On the topography and siege see now R. G. Lewis, Papers Brit. Sch. Rome, 1971, 32 ff. [p. 66]
35 POMPEY’S TRIUMPH. The date of its celebration is. uncertain, whether 81, 80 or 79. E. Badian (Hermes, 1955, 107 ff.) and R. E. Smith (Phoenix, 1960, pp. 1 ff.) are agreed in rejecting 79: the former supports 81, the latter 80. Badian has also emphasized (For. C1., 273 ff.) the seriousness of Pompey’s potential threat to Sulla: imperator with six legions in Africa, control of Sicily, a reasonable fleet, possible support from Numidia and Mauretania, connexions in Cisalpine Gaul, the loyalty of Picenum in an Italy that was not yet completely settled; all this, together with Sertorius in the West, may well have led Sulla not to persist too far in opposing Pompey. Smith (op. cit., p. 8) thinks this view exaggerates the threat which Pompey posed to Sulla at this point. [p. 66]
36 SULLA’S COLONIES. These included Arretium, Clusium, Faesulae, Interamnia, Nola, Pompeii, Praeneste. In most cases (except Pompeii) the colonists remained separate from the original inhabitants and the two communities existed side by side. For a list and discussion see E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 1951, 270 = RR, Army, 67 ff. Cf. also E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization (1969), 129 ff. and P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (1971), 300 ff. Brunt argues that the pattern of land settlement in Italy was not so radically changed as some believe: confiscated latifundia may still have remained largely in the hands of latifondisti, now Sullans in place of Marians, while a large proportion of the Sullan colonists probably failed to make good. [p. 67]
37 SULLA FELIX. On this name see J. P. V. D. Balsdon, JRS, 1951, pp. 1 ff. It is disputable whether this name was officially voted to Sulla by the Senate, which by the end of 82 had ordered the erection of an equestrian statue of Sulla inscribed ‘Cornelio Sullae Imperatori Felici’ (Appian, BC, 1, 97). Sulla, who as early as 86 had named his twin children Faustus and Fausta, certainly believed in his luck. In Greece he may have used the name Epaphroditus to indicate that he enjoyed Aphrodite’s favour, though Felix may not imply a cult of Venus in Italy: felicitas was an essential quality of a successful general (see Cicero, De imp. Cn. Pomp. 28; 47). Cf. also E. Badian, Historia, 1962, 229 = Seager, Crisis, 229. Another of the spoils of victory was an augurate. E. Badian (Arethusa, 1968, 26 ff.) has shown that Sulla added this honour to his earlier pontificate after victory and thus became one of the select few Romans to become both pontifex and augur. [p. 67]
37a VALERIUS FLACCUS. On Sulla’s letter to the interrex Flaccus (Appian, BC, 1, 98) and the genesis of Sulla’s dictatorship see H. Bellen, Historia, 1975, 554 ff. [p. 67]
38 CICERO’S DEFENCE OF ROSCIUS. The closing of the proscription lists did not mean the end of all suffering. The name of Sextus Roscius of Ameria, who had been murdered, was later added to the list in order that his property might be confiscated and acquired for a nominal sum by one of Sulla’s agents named Chrysogonus. To avoid possible exposure Chrysogonus’ accomplices charged Roscius’ son with the murder of his father, thinking that no one would dare defend him through fear of Sulla. Young Cicero, however, boldly and successfully undertook the case, which came before the quaestio inter sicarios. In his speech Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino, delivered in 80 or possibly 79, he exposed Chrysogonus, but carefully pointed out that Sulla was far too busy to be able to keep an eye on all his agents. It is symptomatic of the disordered times that Roscius’ acquittal secured him his personal safety but not the restoration of his father’s property. See also Gruen, Rom. Pol., 265 ff. [p. 69]
39 SULLA’S NEW SENATORS. One tradition records that they were drawn from the Equites (Appian, BC, 1. 100. 5: ‘three hundred of the best Knights’; Livy, Perioch. 89, ‘ex equestri ordine’), another that they were ‘gregarii milites’ (Sall. Cat. 37. 6) or ‘ordinary men’ (Dionysius, 5. 77. 5). H. Hill, C1. Qu., 1932, 170 ff., argued for the former tradition in the narrow sense of equites equo publico only. An attempt to reconcile the traditions has been made by E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 1956, 124 ff., who argues that both can be accepted: Sulla will first have drawn on normal sources including men who had served him well (cf. the filling of the Senate after Cannae by Fabius Buteo: Livy, 23, 22) and then revived the idea attributed to Gaius Gracchus and Drusus of adding 300 Equites; if the Equites were added partly because of the law-courts, this would help to explain the curious procedure by which (according to Appian, BC, 1, 100) they were chosen (Gabba compares the election of jurors in the centumviral tribunal). This attractive solution depends partly on the total number of the post-Sullan Senate, which Mommsen put at 600, but it would not be impossible if the figure should be only 500: Sulla would still have 350 vacancies to fill. (The highest attested attendance is 417 in 61 B.C., excluding magistrates: Cic. ad Att. 1. 14. 5.) For a list of the known Sullan senators see E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 1951, 267 ff. See also J. R. Hawthorn, Gr. and R., 1962, 53 ff. For the view that Sulla wished to give the Equites (or their leaders) greater share in government, as opposed to the common theory of Sulla as an enemy of the equestrian order, see E. Gabba, Athenaeum, 1957, 139, Parola del Passato, 1956, 363 ff. Badian (Historia, 1962, 232) writes that ‘a decisive argument against the traditional view of Sulla’s hatred of the Equites’ is stressed by Gabba (PP, 1956) namely that Sulla, unlike Drusus, did not make the Equites liable to charges of judicial corruption. Gabba (Ann. Pisa, 1964, 1 ff.) links Sulla’s reform with that proposed by Drusus (see above n. 4). For Gabba’s articles in Athenaeum, 1956, 1951 and Ann. Pisa, 1964, see now RR, Army 142 ff., 59 ff., 131 ff., and for the Sullan senators see C. Nicolet, L’ordre équestre à l’époque republicaine, I (1966), 581 ff. Sulla’s general legislative programme is discussed by R. E. Marino, Aspetti della politica interna di Sulla (1974). [p. 69]
40 THE CENSORSHIP. G. Tibiletti (Studia et Docum. Hist et Juris, 1959, 121 ff.) believes that Sulla exercised censorial powers and c
elebrated a lustrum; he may have enrolled new citizens passed over in the registration of 86–85 (cf. L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 119). His power as dictator would have enabled him, in person or by delegation, to execute the tasks usually done by the censors. On the censorship in the late Republic see T. P. Wiseman, JRS, 1969, 59 ff. [p. 69]
41 THE TRIBUNATE. The sources are not always clear on matters of detail. Thus Livy (Perioch. 89) says that Sulla ‘omne ius legum ferendarum ademit’, but there are two laws known which may have been passed by tribunes before their powers were restored in 70 B.C. (lex Antonia de Termessibus and lex Plautia de reditu Lepidanorum; both probably in accord with senatorial wishes). Similarly, the evidence about the tribunes’ veto given by Cicero does not square with what Caesar says, and there are one or two possible examples of tribunes using their veto in these years, e.g. a tribune may have vetoed proceedings against C. Antonius in 76. [p. 70]
42 LEX ANNALIS. On the cursus honorum see A. E. Astin, The Lex Annalis before Sulla (1958). He concludes that the minimum ages for curule office were fixed and that both before and after Sulla they were 36 for aediles, 39 for praetors and 42 for consuls. It is uncertain whether there was a fixed minimum age for the pre-Sullan quaestorship (which was normally held before 30); Sulla will have established this, but with no fixed interval after the quaestorship (cf. E. Badian, JRS, 1959, 81 ff. = Studies, 140 ff.). [p. 67]
43 CISALPINE GAUL. The exact date of the formation of this province is uncertain: cf. above n. 16. If it was not established in 89, its date may be 81 and its author Sulla. But Badian (see n. 16 above) believes that there is ‘good reason for doubting whether it had a separate existence (i.e. separate from the rest of Gallia) even after Sulla’ (Historia, 1962, 232). Sulla added to his glory by extending the pomerium, the sacred boundary of Rome, which could be done only by one who had extended Roman territory, strictly in Italy. This has sometimes been linked with a presumed establishment of Gallia Cisalpina, but it may refer to Sulla’s extension of Italy for administrative purposes from the Aesis to the Rubicon (see Badian, Roman Imperialism in the late Republic2 (1968), 34). It may be noted, with Badian, (op. cit., 31 ff.), that Sulla formed no expansionist foreign policy. He made no attempt to annex wealthy Cyrene (though the opportunity was at hand (see p. 77 and ch. v, n. 5)) nor the even wealthier Egypt (see p. 91), while he had restrained Murena from harassing Mithridates (see p. 64). Whatever the content of the lex Pompeia, Cisalpine Gaul will now have been in an anomalous position, containing many cities of citizens and many with Latin rights. It is uncertain whether Cisalpine Gaul was ever offered to Sulla as a proconsular province (in 88, as compensation for the temporary loss of Asia, or in 80?) as stated by Licinianus. On the population of Cisalpine Gaul see P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (1971), 166 ff. (and for the first century, 198 ff.). [p. 70]
44 PROVINCIAL COMMANDS. The view of Mommsen that Sulla passed a law which forbade consuls and praetors to leave Italy during their year of office is not now widely accepted. J. P. V. D. Balsdon, JRS, 1939, 58 ff., goes so far as to argue that there was not even any conventional, let alone legal, restraint on a consul leaving Rome before the end of his consular office. The very disturbed and abnormal conditions of the Seventies make it very difficult to envisage what Sulla may have hoped to establish as regular practice. The lex de maiestate may have forbidden generals to bring armies back undischarged to Italy. This is the view of R. E. Smith (Phoenix, 1960, pp. 1 ff.) who believes that it had been increasingly common for generals to leave their men abroad and to use token troops for their triumphs. Pompey’s earlier insistence, against Sulla’s orders, in bringing his legions back from Africa in 80 will have underlined the potential danger to the government in Rome that such conduct involved. Hence it was forbidden under Sulla’s treason law. [p. 71]
45 THE QUAESTIONES. The pre-Sullan history of the courts is uncertain, but quaestiones certainly existed to deal with repetundae (149), maiestas (Saturninus) and de veneficiis (cf. Dessau, ILS, 45) and probably ambitus (perhaps by 116) and peculatus (by 86, perhaps in 104). Cf. E. Badian, Historia, 1962, 207; Gruen, Rom. Pol., 117, 124 f., 258 ff. After Sulla the courts will have comprised at least: de repetundis, de maiestate, de ambitu, de sicariis et veneficiis, de peculatu, de iniuria, de falsis. Later other courts were established, e.g. de vi (see A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (1968), ch. viii, who would date this to a lex Lutatia in 78 which was supplemented by a lex Plautia between 78 and 63). [p. 71]
46 SULLA’S ‘MONARCHY’. For this theory, expounded with great ingenuity and learning, see J. Carcopino, Sylla ou la monarchie manquée, 2nd ed. 1947. For criticisms see e.g. M. I. Munro, JRS, 1932, 239 ff. Sulla’s coinage was not monarchical in intent: see S. L. Cesano (Rendiconti d. Pontif. Accad. 1945–46, 187 ff.); M. H. Crawford, Num. Chron., 1964, 148 ff. For the possibility that Sulla abandoned power by stages (dictator till the end of 81, consul 80, privatus 79) see E. Badian, Historia, 1962, 230 = Seager, Crisis, 36, Athenaeum, 1970, 8 ff. On Sulla’s illness, T. F. Carney, Acta Classica, 1960, 64 ff. U. Laffi, ‘Il mito di Silla’, Athenaeum, 1967, 177 ff., 255 ff., examines the elements of Sulla’s work which survived after 70 B.C. into the late Republic. He also traces the evaluation of Sulla in later historiography, including Caesar’s role as the new Marius which forced Pompey to be regarded as the new Sulla who had aspired to regnum by way of proscriptions. With the final victory of Caesar, the anti-Sulla, the tradition hostile to Sulla triumphed. [p. 71]
CHAPTER V
1 SOURCES FOR 78–66 B.C. For 78–70 B.C. see Greenidge and Clay, Sources. The extant writers are roughly the same as those mentioned in note 1 to ch. IV, e.g. Appian (BC, 1, 107–121, and Mithridatica), Plutarch (Lives of Pompey, Sertorius, Crassus, Lucullus), Livy, Periochae 90–100, Dio Cassius, 36 (fragments for 69 B.C. but complete thereafter). A most important work was the Historiae of Sallust (cf. p. 168) which covered the years 78–67 B.C. Only fragments survive (edited by Maurenbrecher in 1891–3), but these include some speeches that Sallust put into the mouths of Lepidus, Philippus, Cotta and Macer, together with the despatch that Pompey sent to the Senate from Spain. In an opusculum Julius Exsuperantius (fourth century A.D.) described the civil war down to the death of Sertorius, based largely on Sallust. A major source, which now becomes important, comprises the Orations of Cicero (e.g. the Verrines and the De lege Manilia). On the period 78–49 B.C. see E. S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (1974). [p. 73]
2 LEPIDUS’ SPEECH. A fragment of Sallust’s History gives his version of a speech by Lepidus, denouncing Sulla’s tyranny. The date is uncertain: it was probably between Sulla’s abdication and death, at the end of 79. Cf. Rice Holmes, Roman Republic, I, 363. For Lepidus’ revolution see Rice Holmes, op. cit., 365 ff.; N. Criniti, Mem. Ist. Lomb xxx (1969); E. Hayne, Historia, 1972, 661 ff; L. Labruna, Il console sovversivo, Marco Emilio Lepido e la sua rivolta (1976). [p. 73]
3 THE TRIBUNES. Lepidus is said by Sallust to have demanded the restoration of tribunician power, by Licinianus to have opposed this. The problem is which was Lepidus’ first and which his second thought. [p. 73]
4 SERTORIUS. The sources for the Sertorian War are collected, with a commentary in Spanish, by A. Schulten, Fontes Hispaniae Antiquae, iv (1937), 160 ff. Sallust’s Historiae (fragments) and Plutarch’s Sertorius are more favourable to Sertorius than are Plutarch’s Pompey, Appian or Livy (we have a fragment of Livy, xci, referring to 77 and 76 B.C.). A recent fragment of Sallust (Catalogue of … Papyri in John Rylands Library, iii) may refer to Sertorius’ adventures in 81. The best modern account is A. Schulten’s monograph, Sertorius (1926), written in German. See also Rice Holmes, RR, I, 369 ff., for the chronology. The fact that the sources are either pro- or anti-Sertorian makes it extremely difficult to assess his aims correctly (cf. P. Treves, Athenaeum, 1932, 127 ff.), with the result that modern historians tend to follow one or other of the traditions. A touchstone is provided by his negotiations with Mithridates: those who believe, with Appian, that he was willing t
o surrender Asia, denounce him as a traitor, while those who accept Plutarch can still regard him as a loyal patriot. An attempt to resolve the deadlock has been made by E. Gabba (Athenaeum, 1954, 77 ff.) by trying to analyse the political sympathies of his followers and bring them into closer relation with political currents in Rome and Italy in the seventies. Sertorius himself was loyal to Rome, but some of his followers represent the anti-Roman views of the extremist Italian opponents of Rome in the Social War. W. H. Bennett (Historia, 1961, 459 ff.) argues that Sertorius was killed in 73 (not 72). On some chronological problems of the Sertorian period see B. Scardigli, Athenaeum, 1971, 229 ff. For Gabba’s article see now RR, Army, 103 ff. [p. 74]
5 CYRENE. A main motive may have been to use the resources of Cyrene at a time of famine and financial need in 75: the corn shortage was relieved in 73 by the lex Terentia Cassia (see p. 78) when money had come in from Cyrene. See S. I. Oost, Cl. Ph., 1963, n. 45. It is astonishing that Rome had not hitherto exploited Cyrene which had been bequeathed to her by its last king Ptolemy Apion when he died in 96 but had left the country for some twenty years in a state of unrest. Clearly the Senate was bent on limiting its administrative responsibilities, while it apparently had not been subjected to strong pressure from Equites or People. See in general S. I. Oost, ‘Cyrene, 96–74 B.C.’, Cl. Ph., 1963, 11 ff.; E. Badian, JRS, 1965, 119 ff., and Rom. Imperialism in the late Rep.2 (1968), 29 f., 35 ff., 99 f.
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 56