Stuff About Sulla

Sulla and the Monuments: Studies in His Public Persona
Author(s): Christopher S. Mackay

Source: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 49, H. 2 (2nd Qtr., 2000), pp. 161-210
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436575 .
Accessed: 29/04/2014 09:29
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:
Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 150.199.120.65 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:29:36 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SULLA AND THE MONUMENTS:
STUDIES IN HIS PUBLIC PERSONA
It is a commonplace in contemporary historiography that Sulla is the pivotal
figure in the fall of the Roman Republic.* One historiographical tradition in
antiquity, it is true, began the story of the demise of the Republic with the
bloodshed introduced into Roman politics with the murder of Ti. Gracchus in
133.1 While it is true that this event set a bad precedent, it did not have fatal
consequences. The career of L. Sulla, on the other hand, directly set the stage
for the events that would necessitate the replacement of the oligarchical govern-
ment of the Republic with the autocracy of the Empire. The violence directed
against the Gracchi and Saturninus and Glaucia merely represented the suppres-
sion of troublesome political factions by other, opposed factions. Sulla, on the
other hand, used the power of his army to further his own position, first by
quashing the laws of P. Sulpicius Rufus and then by returning victorious from
the east to install himself in unrestricted power in the years 83-82. The prece-
dent, as is well known, proved irresistible.2 In 49, Pompey thought he would
return from the east like Sulla, and Caesar ultimately installed himself in a
similar position to Sulla's, paying the price when he did not follow Sulla's
precedent in laying down his power.3 It was left to Caesar's heir to put back in
the bottle the genie released by Sulla, taking into his own hands all military
power and at the same time retaining the form of the Republic while gutting it of
its meaning. Sulla is thus the man who was to unleash the forces that would
result in the fall of the Roman Republic. This paper concerns several interrelat-
ed aspects of Sulla's public persona. Specifically, the issues discussed here
revolve around his public celebration of his victory over Mithridates's general
Archelaus at Chaeronea in 86. The recent discovery of a monument there and a
discussion of the coinage he issued upon his return have raised questions about
how he wished this victory to be viewed and how he portrayed himself before
and after his return. The paper falls into four sections. First, as background I
*
In addition to the standard abbreviations, RRC signifies M. Crawford, Roman Republican
Coinage (1974).
1 App. BC 1.4, Plut. Ti. Grac. 20.1, Velleius Paterculus 2.3.3.
2 P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura thought that he would be another Sulla (Cic. in Cat. 3.9, Sall.
BC 47.2, Plut. Cic. 17.4, App. BC 2.4). Syme of course famously noted that Sulla "could
not abolish his own example" (Roman Revolution [19601 17).
3 See n. 132 for Pompey emulating Sulla. The anecdote that Caesar considered that Sulla
did not know his ABCs because he laid down his power, whether true or not, is indicative
of the ultimate logic of Sulla's example.
Historia, Band XLIX/2 (2000)
? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart
162 CHRISTOPHER S. MACKAY
examine the controversy surrounding a monument erected in Rome on Sulla's
behalf in the late 90s. This illustrates how important the physical commemora-
tion of victory was for a Roman politician and also the role played by such
commemoration in Sulla's rivalry with Marius. Second, the newly found in-
scription from Chaeronea, which has been thought to be a victory trophy of
Sulla himself, but on closer inspection turns out to be a private commemoration
of two Greek participants in that battle. Third comes a controversial coin issued
at the time of Sulla's return, which proclaims his second acclamation as imper-
ator. There has been much dispute as to the date of the coin's issuance and the
significance of the coin type. I argue that the coin was issued soon after his
victory at the Porta Collina, and that the mention of the acclamation refers to the
battle at Chaeronea and not to the battle outside the Porta Collina. Finally, I
discuss Sulla's choice of signet ring in his final years, which seems to refer
symbolically to the three major campaigns of his lifetime. Examination of these
issues will not only add to our knowledge of the monuments and coinage in
question but will also heighten our understanding of the contemporary signifi-
cation of his victory. Thus we may gain a better understanding of the position of
the 'forerunner' of the Caesars.
I) Bocchus's Monument
Sulla seems to have entered into a kind of monumental rivalry with Marius
about trophies. The Romans had only recently adopted the Greek custom of
erecting trophies to commemorate military victories. The first time Roman
generals raised such a monument was when Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and Q.
Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus defeated numerous tribes in Gaul in 121.4 As we
shall soon see, Marius raised two such monuments in Rome, one commemorat-
ing his victory over Jugurtha, the other commemorating that over the Cimbri
and Teutoni. It is in connection with the former that Sulla began his competition
with Marius. In fact, Plutarch, who is our source for this anecdote, connects it
directly with the rivalry between the two which was to have such dire conse-
quences for the Roman state.
i1
.ikv-ot lpo; Maptov av-r@ orakt; a&veppi4ero icatvv
f
n0env
Xaloi3a
Tilv
B6KXo1
4tkotongtiav,
o;
t6v T? 68j.ov 'a'a Oepane'iwv ?v
WPg
1Ca
iAkXq
Xapt46jievo;
avciOpcc Niica; ?v Kantvokico tponatooopou; Kai
nap' ac-akl; Xpaolv
'loyopOav v6' Cautoi 1i3kXa napa&t6Bu>vov. ')
4 Florus 1.37.6. There is some uncertainty as to the exact significance of this claim, since
there is attestation of Roman use of the iconography of the trophy from the period before
the erection of the monument in 121; see G.C. Picard, Les trophies romains (1957) 101-
36 for the debate about Florus's claim that the first trophy was erected in 121, and 137-47
for earlier attestation of Roman trophies.
Sulla and the Monuments: Studies in his Public Persona 163
toi Mapiou
PappOgoxgEvou
ica Kaatpiv
?7rt%etpoiv-Toq,
ETEpov 8E
agivV
TCV T vat KTi;
no6XEo ocov ov5itw 8taiceKa4t vT1(m' a4xtv,
o
utgaXtuco6;
itX?io ...
'Mv
aatv ?1c?xev. (Plut. Sulla 6.1-2)
?1T? icait BO6cxo;
...
?atriFv
?-v
KacxicoXiq NiKa; tpo1fo4opou; icat
nap'
ac'rcai; ?v e?iicot xpUaait 'IouyoU`pOav ?yXeFtpto6evov (nro awtoi
Xx)XXa, TOUTO eE4?atflaeV
Opy13
icat tXovetKi' Map.ov, xS EvXXa
7tEpSLmO)VtO Eti F-au)OV Tta Spya, Kat napeacrioczvEtEo
piq3
ta 6va0i
jtara
icatapadEtv.
avte4ntXoveiKet 6? DvXXa;, Ka't ti v atdatv 6oov o0Vo1 4Epo-
9viiv Eri; ?aov a'iteaXev
6
cauRgatKic; n6?Ego;
... (Plut. Mar. 32.2-3)
King Bocchus of Mauritania erected as a dedication on the Capitol a
monument which portrayed Jugurtha being handed over to Sulla by Bocchus
beside a golden trophy
-
bearing images of Victory. Such a representation
clearly legitimized Sulla's contention that even if Marius was technically in
control, it was Sulla himself who ended the war against Jugurtha when he received
Jugurtha from Bocchus.5 The monument was all the more provocative in that
Marius's own monument to his defeat of Jugurtha was likewise on the Capitol.6
According to Plutarch, the dedication was a gift both to the Roman People
and to Sulla. This obscures the technical reality. The dedication was no doubt
made directly on behalf of the Roman People, permission to make it having
been granted by the senate.7 It was in reality a compliment to Sulla. Plutarch
indicates that the dispute over the monument must have taken place in late 91 or
even early 90, since it was overshadowed by the outbreak of the Social War
following the assassination of M. Livius Drusus in the fall of 91. Whatever the
date of his propraetorship, Sulla was looking forward to running for the consul-
ship after his success in Cilicia, and Bocchus would have been quite willing to
help the political career of a man who stood a good chance of being returned as
consul.8 As for offending the aged Marius, that would not have been a very
weighty counterconsideration. At this time Marius was clearly a man of yester-
day. Who could have foreseen his remarkable and unfortunate return to the
political stage? According to Plutarch the dispute took place between Marius,
who tried to have the dedication removed, and an unspecified group of ETcpOI,
5 The event was significant enough in Sulla's sense of himself that he had the scene en-
graved on his signet ring (see n. 155).
6 Plut. Caes. 6.1 quoted below p. 165.
7 E. Badian, Lucius Sulla. The Deadly Reformer (1970) 12 n. 33.
8 T. Corey Brennan ("Sulla's Career in the Nineties: Some Reconsiderations," Klio 22
[1992] 103-158) 137 refutes the argument of P.F. Cagniart ("L. Cornelius Sulla in the
Nineties: a Reassessment," Latomus 50 [1991] 285-303) 293-95 that Sulla was a political
nonentity in the late 90s and only became a plausible candidate for the consulship after his
successes during the Social War. Brennan 156 demonstrates that the erection of the
monument in 91 was part of Sulla's early campaign for the consulship; so also Badian
(see preceding note) 11-12.
who tried to protect Sulla. The phrasing seems to indicate that Sulla did not
directly take part in the dispute. It seems reasonable to assume that those who
opposed the removal were those in the senate who had approved the erection in
the first place.
Plutarch does not tell us what became of the dispute. If it was interrupted by
the outbreak of the Social War, then presumably the monument remained on the
Capitol. If so, it is hard to believe that it was not removed once Marius regained
control of the city after Sulla's seizure of it and departure for the East.9 At any
rate, such an act would explain Sulla's vindictiveness in connection with
Marius' own trophies.
For, as has already been mentioned, Marius had two trophies in the city.10
We know from Plutarch that one was on the Capitol and commemorated the
victory over the Cimbri and Teutoni."1 Hence the one not on the Capitol
commemorated the war in Africa. This monument was near the domus Aelio-
rum and in the area of it was a templum Febris.'2 It was also next to Marius's
temple of Honos and Virtus.13 We know in some detail of the Capitoline
9 Note Plutarch's statement (Mar. 32.3) that Marius was ready to use force to pull down the
offending monument.
10 That there were two is directly attested by Valerius Maximus 6.9.14: cuius (sc. Marii)
bina tropaea in urbe spectantur; cf. Suet. Div. lul. 11: tropaea Gai Mari de lugurtha
deque Cimbris atque Teutonis where the repetition of the preposition indicates a second
monument. Velleius Paterculus 2.43.4 vaguely mentions restituta in aedilitate adversante
quidem nobilitate monumenta C. Marii.
I I This monument is also mentioned in Prop. 3.1 1.45-46.
12 Valerius Maximus informs us that there were two temples of Febris, quorum ... alterum in
area Marianorum monumentorum ... extat ... (2.5.6) and he tells us that there were at one
particular moment sixteen Aelii, quibus una domuncula erat eodem loci quo nunc sunt
Mariana monumenta (4.4.8).
13 The terminology used by the Romans to describe the temple and the nearby monument is
somewhat confusing and has caused difficulties for scholarly interpretation. On numer-
ous occasions Cicero refers to the temple, in which the senate passed its decree in 57
proposing his recall from exile, as the monumentum Marii (de div. 1.59, 2.136, 140, Sest.
116, Planc. 78. The Schol. Bob. on the pro Plancio passage (166 St.) explains the
monumentum Marii as his temple to Honos and Virtus (in templo scilicet Honoris et
Virtutis) (Valerius Maximus 1.7.5 garbles this as the aedes lovis [sic!] Mariana). Vitruvi-
us mentions (3.2.5) a certain kind of temple quemadmodum est ... ad Mariana Honoris et
Virtutis sine postico a Muciofacta. Herefacta modifies an understood aedes (as shown in
3.2.7), upon which depends the genitive Honoris et Virtutis. Hence the temple is ad
Mariana (cf. in porticu Metelli earlier in the same clause). The neuter plural noun
understood here with Mariana can hardly be anything other than monumenta, the same
plural having been used of one monument by Valerius Maximus (see preceding note).
Note that his use [n. 101 of the distributive ordinal bina with tropaea in place of the
normal ordinal demonstrates that he considered that word to be among the pluralia
tantum. Presumably the same applies to the monumenta Mariana, which must have been
a complicated monument erected near his temple. Since the monument on the Capitol
dedication from an incident in the early career of C. Julius Caesar.14 In his
aedileship, Caesar restored the monument, which had suffered at the hands of
Sulla, as Plutarch informs us.
8u6tv 6 oua&v ev Ti noXket artaeov, ti; ev a&nco XXka
pya
8uvagvi;,
ti; 86e Maptavii;, ii t're
Kcta1t?t ate'ainacro,
icogt8i
taratvaz
npadtTouaa, TavQiTv avappcoat icai KpoayayeaOat
PoVuX6p.?vo;,
?v rad;
cyopavogticai;
4tXo'rtiat;
aiiqqv
Exotvaat; e'uc6va; ?not'iaaro Mapiou
xcpt6a Kcai NiKca; rpoirat0o6pou;, &a
O?pv
vUK-ir; ei; TO Katr(OAtov
tav
MaEv. aga
8'
lgEpq
roi
OF-eacagvou; gapagaivov'a
davEa
Xp-5aq
icat
rpX?vij
Co;lcs-oaaJlEva
iept'T(65 (St6i5xov 5s ypa cn r&
Kipt-
Kca catopO(oJata)
O6po; ?CXe
S%?
;
o'6Xgin
'rovi; dvatv'ro; (oiu y'ap ijv
ad&Xo;) raXUs
&
iepttuOV O X6yo; "Opot4? invra; &vOp6noui; inp;
'rj v
0irtv. aXX' oi p_iv
EOP6cov
npavvi&a noXtret'eaOat Kaitapa,
vogot;
cat
oygaczai Kcaropwopuygva;
cnavtoardvra
-tga;,
Kat zoviro npav nt' rov
8fiiov elvat
npo[taXarr6gevov,
si F-xrtOdaevrac rcti;
OoXtrtgTiat;
6nr'
auxrou Kcat 6i(ot nai4Etv totauta KaCt
1catvo-ogLtv.
oi
5e
Maptavot
napaOappivvavrs; auto6;, iuV S?tTE
Oavugaa-rol
x aoit &Se4t
valoav
?Eai4-
v1l
Kca
Kppt(k)
KatetXoV T'o KantsXov t oXoI; 6? Kcait 5acpua 'iv
Mapiov 0eoJteVOt; 6Onv 954 #jboviq; ?6opev Kai
gya; ilv
o Katoap
eycogtLot;
atp6pevo;, co; dvrt avrvrow I'ito; il 6 a6vinp -n; Mapiou
auyyF-vcia; (Caes. 6.1-5)
First, we should note the events of the past. Sulla had torn apart and buried
the monument.15 Why such treatment? Trophies were dedications to the gods,
commemorated the victory over the northern tribesmen, the monumenta Mariana near his
temple of Honos and Virtus commemorated his defeat of Jugurtha. Many years ago,
L. Richardson, Jr., "Honoris et Virtutis and the Sacra Via," AJA 82 (1978) 240-46 argued
(243) that "In the precinct [of the temple of Honos and Virtus] apparently were ranged
trophies of the arms taken from Jugurtha, the Teutones and the Cimbri, for these were
dismantled by Sulla, but seemingly without damage to the building and were reerected by
Julius Caesar on the Capitoline." In his New Topographical Dictionary of Rome (1992)
402, Richardson apparently maintains this interpretation, overtly rejecting Valerius Max-
imus's attestation of two monuments as a mistake. Presumably the plural monumenta has
led to this peculiar notion that monuments to both campaigns had stood in the vicinity of
the temple of Honos and Virtus and then been re-erected by Caesar on the Capitol.
Richardson also associates the monumenta near the temple with the famous Gaul painted
on the scutum Marianum (Cic. de orat. 2.266, Pliny NH 32.25, Quint. inst. 6.3.38), but
that is a completely different matter.
14 In the standard work on the subject of Roman trophies, Picard (n. 4) 161 bizarrely says
"nous ignorons en quoi consistaient ces monuments."
15 We know of Sulla's taking apart of the monument from Suetonius's terse notice: tropaea
Gai Mari de lugurtha deque Cimbris atque Teutonis olim a Sulla disiecta restituit ...
(Suet. Div. Jul. 11). This is presumably what is meant by Dio's attributing to the
opponents of Caesar's deed the expression
v6iotq
Kcai 86-ypaat
catopa)puygEvac rqtai.
and as such any attempt to destroy them would be sacrilegious. 16 When after the
battle of Zela Caesar came across an offensive trophy set up by Mithridates
Eupator in memory of his victory in 67 over C. Valerius Triarius, he did not
throw the monument down, but set up his own as a kind of counterbalance.'7
Sulla, being at least as pious a soul as Caesar, likewise respected the sanctity of
Marius's monument, though in a less magnanimous spirit. Destroying it was
excluded as an option, but he could preserve the monument as a dedication
while removing it as a reminder in the human world of Marius's glory by
literally burying it. Such an act is fully in accord with what we know of Sulla's
character: superstition toward the gods and spite toward his enemies.
Therefore, in his bold attempt to gain favor by restoring the monument of
his kinsman, a man who had perhaps tarnished his reputation by his behavior in
the early 80s but whose failings could be forgotten when compared to the
bloodshed of Sulla's return, Caesar could not have restored the original, which
was presumably buried on the Capitol where it had been dedicated. Instead he
had a replica made. Since the original dedication had been made about thirty-
five years before, the original artists involved were most likely dead, but their
apprentices may well have been still alive, and in any case many must have
remembered its appearance. Hence, Caesar's monument must have been a
reasonable reflection of the original. It sounds remarkably like Bocchus's
monument for Sulla. We have images of Marius instead of the tableau of
Bocchus presenting Jugurtha to Sulla. If any faith can be put in Dio's plural
(EtKovaq
... Mapiou), perhaps there were separate portrayals of his victories
over the Cimbri and Teutoni.18 On both monuments we also have golden
trophy-bearing Victories. In the absence of any further indication of the nature
of the monuments, it may be that these are simply superficial, generic similari-
ties. Furthermore, we should also remember that Dio is describing the more
prominent monument and not Marius's trophy over Jugurtha. However, Caesar
did restore the latter monument as well, and if it resembled the Capitoline
monument, it seems quite likely that Bocchus's was meant as a physical
16 It would appear from Cic. de domo 127, 130, 136-37 that express authorization by
the
people was needed to dedicate a statue (see T. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht3 [1887-
88] 2.61, 456, 620, 3.339-40). Since the very fact that the monuments were buried shows
that the authorizing law (if there was one) was not repealed,
Dio's vague
reference to
v6ootq
cat 6yiacot
icaropopuyg6vat
tiai is inexact. Presumably, a decree of the
senate authorized the burial (cf. the SC in Cic. de domo 137), though one cannot be too
sure, given our meager evidence, of the procedure used under such unusual circumstanc-
es.
17 Dio 42.48.2
18 Admittedly Dio ascribes the monument only to the Cimbri, but Suetonius (see
n. 15)
calls
it a trophy de ... Cimbris atque Teutonis. Certainly, Marius had been offered a triumph
for
his defeat of the Teutoni and Ambrones in 102, though he postponed it until he had also
defeated the Cimbri and celebrated only one (Livy per. 68).
refutation of Marius's claim to have ended the war against Jugurtha.19 Hence, it
is easy to see why Marius would have been enraged by Bocchus's monument,
and also why after all the bitterness of the 80s Sulla wreaked posthumous
vengeance on Marius by burying his trophies.
It is easy to depreciate the significance of long-gone monuments to men
whose greatness no longer means much to us. But if anything, Plutarch's
presentation errs on the side of toning down the effect that the restoration must
have had. When men awoke to discover restored once more to its position on
the Capitol (and presumably at the other site) the trophy of Marius's great
victory, in all its golden splendor, the effect must have astounding. Not simply
was the act daring in itself. The memory of Marius, the novus homo who,
whatever his faults, held the consulship seven times and saved the Roman state
from the northern threat which no one else seemed capable of
quelling
- the
memory of this man's glory was rescued from the vindictive spite of bloody
Sulla. The consternation on the part of the supporters of Sulla's reconstitution
of the state is easy to imagine.
Examination of this incident has highlighted the importance which both
Sulla and Marius placed on the commemoration of their deeds in public monu-
ments. Sallust succinctly formulated the ethos of the pagan aristocracy of the
late Republic: quoniam vita ipsa qua fruimus brevis est, memoriam nostri quam
maxume longam efficere (BC 1.4).20 But naturally while long-term fame may
have been a pleasing notion, there was much more immediate gloria to be won
from the admiration and acclaim of one's contemporaries. Clearly, the erection
of a public monument in commemoration of oneself during one's lifetime was a
very high form of gloria and played a major role in acquiring a permanent
mystique for oneself. While public opinion may shift like the winds, a monu-
ment in stone is a permanent memorial of the acclaim of the moment.21 Such
was the nature of Marius's monumenta. Sulla's had a rather different purpose.
Instead of recording the acclaim he had won at the time for securing the handing
over of Jugurtha, it was intended to assert a retroactive claim on the past: while
19 For whatever reason, Dio restricts himself to the Capitoline monument. Suetonius direct-
ly attests the restoration of both monuments, and of course both existed in Valerius
Maximus's day. Caesar took a rather more charitable attitude toward Sulla's famous
equestrian statue in the Forum. It had been removed at the time that Caesar's victory at
Pharsalus became known in Rome (Dio 42.18.2), but Caesar restored it when he made
improvements to the rostra in 44 (Dio 43.49.1, Suet. Div. Jul. 75.4; cf. for Pompey's
statues Plut. Caes. 57.6, Cic. 40.5). This act was presumably another element in Caesar's
contrast of his own clementia with Sulla's vindictiveness.
20 That Sallust had a rather different form of monumentum in mind does not affect the
relevance of his formulation to the attitudes of Sulla and his contemporaries. See also the
similar sentiments expressed in Cic. Phil. 9.10.
21 The political significance of the monuments explains why they were erected in Rome
rather than on the actual site of the victory. The point was not merely to make an offering
to the gods but to do so where Roman citizens would see it on a regular basis.
Marius may have celebrated the triumph over Jugurtha, it was Sulla who really
concluded the war. There is little wonder that Marius was so opposed to the
monument, and this quarrel may have contributed to Sulla's bitterness to those
who supported Marius. No doubt Marius's attempt to secure the command
against Jugurtha through the rogatio Sulpicia played a large part in Sulla's
hostility, but his later act of throwing down Marius's monuments shows how
deeply Sulla felt about their 'monumental' conflict.
Now that we have seen the great importance of public monuments in a
Roman general's public persona, let us turn to the monuments erected by Sulla
at Chaeronea in commemoration of his victory there in 86.
II. "Discovery" of a Monument of Sulla's at Chaeronea
In 1989 a group of people associated with the American School of Classical
Studies in Athens went on a Saturday morning hike in Boeotia and had the good
fortune to come across a heretofore unknown inscription near the site of ancient
Chaeronea.22 It was written on the base of a monument commemorating two
Chaeroneans, Homoloichus and Anaxidamus, who had greatly aided Sulla in
his defeat of Archelaus's army there in 86 B.c.23 Indeed, Plutarch actually
mentioned the monument in his account of Sulla's victory. In their publication
of their find, the discoverers assert that this base formed part of a victory
monument of Sulla himself (for convenience's sake, I will henceforth refer to
the authors as the "Authors"). This is not so. Reliance on an erroneous interpre-
tation of Plutarch has led to a misunderstanding of the nature of the inscription
and the monument on which it was engraved.
Let us begin with the inscription itself. It appears on the base of some form
of statuary and reads as follows:
'O,oktXo;
Fava[4]ixago;
ap[tkcit;.
The
nominative can be taken in one of two ways. It indicates either the name of what
stands on the pedestal or that of the dedicator of the monument. In no way could
Sulla be understood to have put up such a monument.24 Since the two names
22 John Camp, Michael Ierardi, Jeremy Mclnerny, Kathryn Morgan, and Gretchen Umholtz,
"A Trophy from the Battle of Chaeroneia of 86 B.C.," AJA 96 (1992) 443-455.
23 The two men tell Sulla of a path unknown to the enemy by which a small number of troops
could reach high ground to the enemy's rear and dislodge him. Sulla gives them a
detachment, which performs as planned (Plut. Sulla 17.6-18. 1).
24 The Authors (n. 22) 448 with n. 17 suggest that Sulla's dedication may have appeared on
a lower block now missing. What could this inscription have said when the names of
Homoloichus and Anaxidamus stood above in the nominative case? In Greek, when a
person is being honored, the practice is to put the dedicatee's name first in the accusative
followed by the dedicator's in the nominative, with a verb meaning "honored" under-
stood. For a similar discussion of the syntax of a dedication on Delos, see p. 182-183. The
Authors 448 with n. 17 suggest that "the larger names of Sulla and his patron deities" may
appear below the single round base for what appears to be a trophy, then the
nominatives must mean that the two Greeks themselves dedicated the monu-
ment.
What then does it represent? The Authors translate the word dptatis as
"heroes". This will not do. Even if we ignore the possible confusion with the
divine word thus translated into English, "hero" does not accurately convey the
sense of the Greek. The word obviously derives from the superlative adjective
dptroro, and signifies someone marked out as the best. More specifically, it
refers to the person elected by the victors after a battle as the person who
performed best in battle. The ancient Greeks would thus mark out not only the
bravest individual but also the bravest contingent in an army of allies.25 In the
present context, one might consider this to be a representation of the Roman
praemia virtutis, since the army was commanded by Sulla.26 First, it would
seem that Roman military decorations were given only to Roman citizens.27
have appeared on the missing back of the discovered stone, on another block below it, or
on the actual victory trophy itself. They themselves admit to the implausibility of the first
and third suggestions, and say of the second: "It may seem surprising to place the
Chaeroneans' names above Sulla's, but this arrangement would have the advantage of
using the larger (lower) block for the longer names of Sulla and his patron deities" (n. 17).
First, one may be allowed to wonder how we know the size of the missing block. In any
case, as we have seen, there is no way that Sulla's name could appear in connection with
the nominatives preserved. Sulla's own dedication at Sicyon (L. Cornelius L.f Sulla
imper. Martei [ILLRP 2241) and Octavian's at Actium ([Imp. Caesajr Diu[i lulil f
uic[toriam consecutus bellJo quod pro [rle p[ulblic[al ges[silt
in hac
region[e conslul
[quintum imiperatfor selptimum pace parta terra [marique Nepltuno [et
Malrt[i clastra
[ex] quibuts ad hostem
in]seq[endum egriessu[s
est naualibus spolilis [exornalta
c[onsecrauitl [AE 1992 1534]) have the name of the dedicating general in the nominative
and the god in the dative, the standard practice in Latin.
25 See the treatment by W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War Part 11(1974) 276-90.
26 In 6.37.10. 8.37.5 and 10.11.6, Polybius uses dpvcneia for such awards by Roman
generals; the word does not appear in 6.39, his discussion of Roman praemia, but there he
uses avbpayaOia. which is a synonym.
27 On the topic in general, see Valerie Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman
Army (1981). (The book is mainly concerned with the Imperial period, when there is
much epigraphical information; it is rather more cursory about the Republic, and she does
not even mention the Greek inscription discussed below.) On pp. 121-26 she demon-
strates that under the Empire virtually no foreign troops received the standard awards
given to citizen troops, but then claims (126-27) that this was not so for the Republic.
Yet, in no instance can she cite evidence for an a award to foreign troops apart from a
vague reference in Pliny NH 33.37. While the troops of the ala Salluitana did receive
such awards, they were also granted Roman citizenship (ILS 8888), and in BH 26 while
the peregrine turma Cassiana is granted only a sum of money by Caesar, the Roman
praefectus does receive standard awards. Interestingly enough, we have a damaged
inscription in which the Aetolians honor a Greek who had apparently been "honored"
(teq4[aftvTa]) by Sulla [es' dc]vpaya6i, (IG 92.1.139=SIG3 744). Unfortunately, the
man's actual awards are lost (the restoration of 86pari in ll. 3-4 is groundless, and makes
Furthermore, in the directly following section Plutarch notes that at the victory
games held at Thebes all the Greeks selected the recipients of the communal
honor since Sulla was ill-disposed toward the Thebans.28 If, then, the Greeks
determined the victors of the Greek epinician games, it is likely that they also
determined the recipients of the ap?CrTEta.29 Plutarch informs us that one of the
privileges of winning the
aptTta
as best contingent was the right to raise a
tpo6alov.30 While various awards are attested, it would seem that the Atheni-
ans gave a crown and a panoply to the man chosen as best in their own army,
and this practice may well have established itself in the Hellenistic period.3
Since the base of the Chaeronea monument is topped by what seems to be a
torus moulding for a panoply, the monument could well have supported a
no sense with the restoration
[crpartcoricot; 66pto;I
made in 11. 5-6 on the basis of an
Imperial inscription [BCH 4 (1880) 507, miscited in SEG as BCH 6]). The recipient seems
to have been a high commander of the Aetolian league; at any rate, a man who is likely to
have been his father was strategos of the league [see IG 92.1.36.1 l=SIG3 444.11]). It is
noteworthy that the term used for the award is czv8paya0ia. This suggests that Sulla did
not award the synonymous xptalTaE-a, which would be the natural term in connection with
anyone named as dptar-u;. Thus, there is no reason to think that
papiacrt;
here means
"recipients of Roman military awards". The simple Greek word should convey its normal
Greek meaning.
28 oi S? wpiVoVTr; "jaav
'EXXqvc;
?K XTCXV dXXo.V
avaKEKXqrnVoI n0xeov (Sulla 19.6).
Appian records that Sulla distributed the 6puoar6a on the day after the battle of Or-
chomenos (o 6e k XAa; TS; tx7to161; r6v Te tcaiapXov TctCqQvou tai Ttot; dxXot;
dpta(t1Ea e6i6Vo [Mith. 203]), but he seems to be speaking of the Roman military
praemia. At any rate, the xa&,iapXo; is the Roman (L. Minucius) Basillus (Mith. 201).
29 The word dpuartia is of course the abstract idea of "excellence." The actual award is
often called T6 dptarelov. For the method of election, which was determined by the
commanders of the various contingents, see Pritchett (n. 25) 288-89.
30 The fullest evidence for this is from Plutarch's Life of Aristides 20. There he tells of the
recriminations that followed the battle of Plataea. The Athenians would not grant T0
dputireov to the Spartans or allow them to erect a tp6nacov (T6rv 'AOvaiWv 16 apieiXclov
ToY;
lxiaprtrTat; o0) napa&t6vtov ou& 'p6iraiov icrTivatvn oyXo)poi6vx(Ov [20.11).
Eventually the matter is turned over to the arbitration of the Greeks, and is settled when it
is decided to compromise by rendering the honor to the Plataeans. At the same time the
Spartans and Athenians raised their own tponatov separately (gaTrlcav & rp6iratov i6ia
piv Aaiceatp6viot X%opi; 6' 'AOTvcxiot [20.31). Plutarch elsewhere refers to this as a
quarrel Jt?pi rov3 tpotaiov. t; dvaatdaco, (Mor. 873D). Doubts have been cast on the
authenticity of this event, which is not mentioned by Herodotus. For our purposes, the
historical truth does not matter (see the discussion in Pritchett [n. 251 283-86). Plutarch
associated the right to erect the tp6ratov with the winning of E6 apar-Elov. That being
so, there is no reason to disbelieve the possibility of a corresponding right on the part of
individuals who won the personal apimreov to make a similar dedication. Even if there is
no evidence for such a right in the Classical era, such a right may have been invented later
by analogy.
3 1 See Pritchett (n. 25) for a discussion of the reward; the panoply appears in Isoc. 16.29 and
Plut. Alc. 7.3.
representation of such an award to Homoloichus and Anaxidamus.32 Accord-
ingly, it is permissible to think that this monument is a personal dedication
made by Homoloichus and Anaxidamus to commemorate their having won the
award of &ptoteia for the battle.33
This conclusion is supported by reflections on the nature of the monument
itself. To judge by the published pictures and drawings, it is a decidedly cheap
affair.34 The inscription is very crudely inscribed and compares badly with the
dedication made by Sulla in Sicyon.35 Surely, the conqueror of Mithridates
could have done better. Furthermore, even if we could believe that Sulla erected
such a monument to Greeks serving under him, it is impossible to believe that a
magistrate of the Roman People would have inscribed it in the uncouth dialect
of Boeotia.36
These grounds alone would strongly suggest that the inscription was not put
up by Sulla. Let us now turn to the texts of Plutarch which have been interpreted
as indicating that he did do so. First, we have Plutarch's reference to victory
32 For the torus, see the Authors (n. 22) 444; 448 for the suggestion that the torus served as
the base for a representation of a panoply.
33 The Authors (n. 22) do not clarify the exact nature of the inscription. On 443 n. 2, they
cite Pritchett's suggestion that the award of aristeion may have conferred the right to
erect a trophy and conclude "In the present passage [Plut. Sulla 19.9] we should perhaps
understand the term dp10TEi in a technical sense and consider the honor of being
prominently named on the trophy a part of the aristeia received by the two Chaironeians."
It is hard to conceive of apioax6 as anything but a technical term, and in any case there is
no evidence that this award, whomever it was granted by, conveyed the right to have
one's name on someone else's monument. This hesitant suggestion is merely an attempt
to paper over the obvious incongruity of the names of the two Boeotians appearing on the
victory trophy of the Roman imperator.
34 The Authors say "Three lines of text are preserved, the top two neatly carved ... The third
line is less carefully inscribed. The width of the letter spaces varies not only from line to
line, but also within each line ... This inequality indicates that the layout of the text was
not carefully planned before the inscription was cut" (n. 22) 445. Clearly the arrangement
of letters is slovenly, and even the claim of the neatness of the first two lines is belied by
the clumsily formed and engraved letters. A cursory examination of the photograph
suffices to indicate the inferior craftsmanship of the engraver.
35 A photograph of this inscription (ILLRP 224) is available in
HpaQKUcKQ 1938 p. 121.
36 As far as I know, no official correspondence of a Roman magistrate appears in anything
but koine. Plutarch could not bring himself to record this form and tacitly changed it into
the koine. There is every reason to believe that a Roman magistrate would have had the
same sensibilities (that the Romans were aware of such things is shown by the anecdote
about P. Crassus Mucianus knowing all five dialects, i.e., Aeolic, Doric, Arcadian, Attic
and koine [Valerius Maximus 8.7.61). The story of Sulla and the fishermen from Halae
(Plut. Sulla 26) indicates that Sulla could converse in Greek (it is hard to imagine an
interpreter translating the question eTt yap ri t; AXaiov;), as does his quotation of
Aristophanes when shown the head of Marius the younger (App. BC 1.435) and perhaps
his acquisition of Aristotle's and Theophrastus's works following the capture of Athens
(Plut. Sulla 26.1).
monuments at the end of his description of the battle. He mentions Sulla's
statement that in the battle he lost fourteen men, and two of these showed up at
dusk. Plutarch continues:
6to Kati c6ts poiaiot;
Ceiypaxgev
"App xcat Niicrv icat
'A0po8itrlv,
6;
O%U
i1jTov eiUT.Uitq
icatopO6aa;
S Sstv6nvrt Kcat
8uvd[e
t 6ov n6X?0ov.
adXXsa oito ?v t6 tp6onatov Ecn'rpCE
Ti; X8t?odSO; ga1Xn;
niXpCTOV Vev-
cKXtvav oi nr-pi 'ApXeXaov
(pi p]37 1apa t6 M6Aou p?iOpov, ?tepov &?
CEa tot) Ooupiou icata KcopU4Tv iccXK( ?i t KU1COXt t aV apfap-
ov,
ypcggai
stv 'EXXrjvtoi; ?iwiatccivov
'OgoX6tXov
cat
'AvaEt8agov
apRT?t;.
(Sulla 19.5)
37 The Authors (n. 22) accept N.G.L. Hammond's defense ("The Two Battles of Chaeronea
[338 B.c. and 86 B.c.]," Klio 31 [1938] 186-218 at 195 n. 2) of the MS. reading, which is
dubious. His interpretation is based on his understanding of the verb ryKxcivc, which he
takes to be a synonym of 4c5yco. In fact, tyKXivCO
refers to the action of giving way
before an enemy's attack, and while this action is very often the preliminary to flight
(Plut. Fab. 12.3, Polyb. 1.23.10, 1.74.7, 1.76.7, 3.65.7, 3.69.11, 3.116.7, 4.12.7, 5.14.5,
5.23.5.), it is possible to yickivev without fleeing (Polyb. 5.84.10, 11.21.5-6). Ham-
mond's interpretation of ?vgicKtvav as a verb of motion leads to his understanding of
napc, which he takes as indicating the goal of the flight, with
geXpt
emphasizing this
sense. It is certainly true that nap6 plus the accusative can indicate motion ("towards").
However, it can also indicate the more static sense of "along," and Plutarch's usage in this
passage shows that that is what he means here: a river with water "along the very root (of
a mountain)" (nap6t rmv
OiCav
[16.1]), a path leading "along the Museum" (tapa t6
Moueitov [17.61), Sulla sacrificing "along the Cephisus river" (nap& rov Ki4to6v
[17.4]). The last example is directly comparable to the sentence about the position of the
trophy. On the other hand, when Plutarch directly reports the collapse of Archelaus's left,
he uses a different preposition, saying that they fled
np6q
te t6v
orasg6v
icai t6
'AK6v,rov 6pos (19.3). Thus, napd indicates the static situation of the barbarians giving
way "beside" the channel of the Molus. Hammond in fact conflates the two uses of the
preposition when he translates pexpt irapd "as far as beside" (his citation of
g6Xpt
gni
[Xen. Anab. 5.1.1] is inapposite, as there it means "all the way to"). He also says that "the
phrase
pgXpt
napd must be taken to govern (sic) oi nepi'
ApXeXaov
rather than gve-
xKtvav." Such a use of two attributive prepositional phrases, one modified by an adverb,
is stylistically doubtful, and the second prepositional phrase is to be understood rather as
an adverbial modifier of the verb. (Hammond explains his interpretation as "the wing
under Archelaus extending so far as to the stream Molos [irapd with the accusative
implying extent]," which seems to contradict his interpretation of iapa as meaning
"beside" in the text above.) In fact, in Plutarch
g.Xpt
is used only in conjunction with
6eipo (Pomp. 24.5) and with xrp6 (Sol. 27.2, Alex. 11.3, Ant. 61.3), that is, with elements
indicating actual motion. As for
tXpi.
itself, it can be explained as an intrusive gloss to
make clear the sense of napi (getting it wrong in the process). Accordingly, then, nap&
r6 MoXov pCeOpov indicates apo koinou both the site where Archelaus's troops first gave
way as a preliminary to their flight and the site where Sulla's victory monument stood in
commemoration of the event.
First, Plutarch notes Sulla's habit of inscribing certain deities' names on his
monuments. Prima facie, since the inscription in question does not bear these
names, it is not one of his trophies.38 Furthermore, the first of the two trophies
mentioned by Plutarch does fit into this category. It is Sulla's trophy for his
victory, and is placed below in the plain. Such is the sense of Toi3-ro in
Plutarch's phrase toi-ro jev To Tpo6iatov. The demonstrative adjective ol'to;
marks out that which is determined by context, and what Plutarch means is that
this (namely the one dedicated to Mars, Victory and Venus) is the monument
commemorating the victory on the plain.39 Plutarch then shifts, and mentions a
second trophy (etspov).40 The Authors automatically assume that the second
Tpo6atov was set up by Sulla, but this is not necessarily so. Who dedicated it is
not indicated by Plutarch. As we have seen, Homoloichus and Anaxidamus did
so, using the right bestowed on them by virtue of the award of aeptaEtea.
Accordingly, when Plutarch here mentions two rpo6iata, he does not actually
mean that both were set up by Sulla himself as dedications commemorating his
victory.41 The monument discovered in 1989 was not technically Sulla's
38 For the impossibility of restoring Sulla's name on the monument, see n. 24.
39 In their translation, the Authors (n. 22) 443 ignore the adjective and begin the sentence
"Now the trophy of the battle of the plain stands ..." It is not possible that in this phrase we
have the common idiom roiro ev ... toiTo Ue with the roi3ro & replaced, as some times
happens, by simple Se. Plutarch is fond of roxro gEv, but a check of the TLG reveals that
he always has roi3'ro
Se
for the second element (Them. 5.4, Cam. 19.2-3, Tim. 15.2-4,
Flam. 3.1, 15.4, Mar. 9.3, Sulla 12.3, 12.6, 14.5, Caes. 5.9, Cic. 5.4, 12.2, 36.7, Demet.
53.2, Brut. 12.2, Arat. 24.2, 50.5, Mor. 260E, 317C, 325B, 417E, 588F, 687C, 963C).
Furthermore, &kXX indicates that the sentence introduced by it must in some way contrast
with what precedes (see J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles2
([19541 1-21), and so far as
I can tell there is no usage that corresponds to the Authors' "now," which is presumably
resumptive or concessive. Plutarch in fact often uses a woro .6v ... &e construction intro-
duced by aXXd to show a contradiction with what precedes: the ?v clause summarizes or
illustrates what precedes and the &e clause then represents some kind of contrast: Rom.
21.2, Alex. 60.7, Mor. 380D, 566C, 1078D, 1093B. (When the roi)o Pev ... S? construc-
tion is used to elaborate rather than contradict what precedes, it is introduced by Kcai:
Rom. 13.5, Mor. 30B.) In these examples, rofi3o is always a pronoun. This suggests that in
Sulla 19.5 co6ro is the subject of the pseudo-copulative verb 9CFTTKE and r6T p6iraov is
predicative (for a similar construction, see Rom. 13.5). In the Sulla passage the singular
refers to the one example from Chaeronea of the trophies whose inscriptions Plutarch
mentioned in the preceding sentence.
40 For a similar contrast of roiiro
g6v
with 9TEpOV Ue see Rom. 13.5.
41 The ease with which the two monuments can be associated with one another since they
derive from the same battle is illustrated by the reference to these monuments in Pausani-
as, who says: XacpwvEvik SU Hio oarlv ?v Xij x& pop6Irwa a 'Pwpalot Kai ?6Xa;
tcrn,av
Ta4iXov
Keai crpariav Mt0ptS6,ro-o Kpanscavxe (9.40).
The reference to the Romans shows that he is speaking only in generalities, since the
dedication on the plain was made by Sulla in person, and the Romans had nothing to do
with it.
-rp6oatov, but it did attest to Sulla's victory there and thus could be character-
ized as a ?poKatov in the general sense. In accordance with their interpretation
of what the monument ought to have been, the Authors compare a statue of a
panoply, which was found at Orchomenos and may derive from a Sullan
pTp6iatov
erected to commemorate his later victory there, and they suggest that
a similar panoply may have been supported by the base on which was engraved
the dpiacrs text.42 As we have seen, this is a likely form for the monument of
the Boeotians to have taken, and this may explain why Plutarch could so easily
associate two different monuments, though it remains possible that the monu-
ment took some other form.
Before proceeding to the two passages taken to support the interpretation of
the new monument as one of Sulla's, it must be emphasized that the dedication
of the monument in the plain was written in Latin. There is no other explanation
for Plutarch's notice that the inscription to Homoloichus and Anaxidamus was
written in Greek letters. Since Plutarch was transmitting a Greek inscription
with Greek letters, this statement makes sense only as a contrast to something
not written in Greek letters and this can only be the inscription on the monu-
ment to the battle on the plain. This fits in well both with the practice of most
other Romans and with Sulla's own practice. It is true that L. Mummius made a
dedication at Olympia in Greek (Olympia 5 #278). Subsequent Romans do not
appear to have followed this example. When making a dedication at Delphi
following the defeat of Perseus king of Macedon, L. Aemilius Paullus used
Latin: L. Aimilius L.f imperator de rege Perse Macedonibusque (ILLRP 323).
M. Minucius Thermus, legatus to his brother in 110-106, likewise made a
dedication in Latin at Delphi (ILLRP 52). Octavian used Latin in his trophy
monument at Actium.43 Indeed, in making a dedication to Ares in Sicyon, Sulla
himself used Latin: L. Cornelius L.f Sulla imper(ator) Martei (ILLRP 224).
The Authors note that this inscription was apparently on a "statue base ... and
cannot therefore be adduced as a comparandum".4 By not actually quoting the
inscription and by characterizing the monument as merely a statue base, they
can lend credence to their dubious conclusion. But why should a dedication to
the god Mars in a Greek sanctuary not be a valid comparandum? Is Sulla likely
to have thought that he should speak to the gods in Latin in Sicyon but use
Greek on a victory monument (which was, after all, a dedication to the gods)?
Yet Plutarch makes statements that suggest that the monuments in Chaero-
nea bore the Greek title Etacp66vxo;. The Authors assume that this must mean
that the monuments were both set up by Sulla and both had Greek dedications.45
42 Authors (n. 22) 449.
43 See note 24.
44 Authors (n. 22) 448 n. 16.
45 Even including the names of the gods, who are rendered as "Ares, Nike and Aphrodite" in
the Authors' (n. 22) translation on 443. Here one is directly confronted with the contrast
with Sulla's dedication to Mars in Sicyon.
As we have seen, this interpretation is contradicted by the sense of the newly
discovered inscription. Also, how then can these passages in Plutarch be recon-
ciled with his implication that the monument in the plain was dedicated in
Latin?
First, we should consider the title
'Enarpo6'tvo;
itself. This is a Greek
translation of the Latin title Felix, which Sulla assumed after the death of the
younger C. Marius in late 82 at the time of the fall of Praeneste.46 In order to
explain Plutarch's statements which apparently ascribe the title to the dedica-
tion of the Chaeronea monuments, Balsdon suggested that Sulla used the Greek
title before receiving the Latin one.47 For this there is no other evidence, and
much to contradict it. In no preserved inscription from the period before 82 does
he receive the title 'Eica4po68to;. Indeed, in the senatus consultum settling the
dispute between the publicans and the shrine of Amphiarus at Oropus (Sherk
RDGE 23) Sulla is given the name
'Enapp6&tov
when he is mentioned in his
consulship in 80 (1. 52) but is called accitoKpdrwp for the decision he made on
behalf of Amphiarus in Achaea before his return (1. 39). This of course is simply
a reflection in Greek translation of the fact that Sulla used the title imperator
after the victory of Chaeronea and received the title Felix after his return to
Italy. But it is surely inconceivable that Sulla would have adopted a distinct
titulature for himself in Greek.
Let us now examine the passages from Plutarch. First, we have a passage
from Plutarch's discussion of the good fortune of the Romans, where he
discusses Sulla's felicity:
Kai PCi'RoatYTi ?v 4iXtt
dVOgd6Eto,
tot;
8e
"EXXrlat
o"To
`ypaoE-
Aol5Ktoq
KopviXto; Zi5XXa;
'Ena4p68Voq. Kait xra nap'
hpliv
?v Xatpo-
v?iQt tp6ina icatax t6v MtOpt&atlKv ov rwo;
i ypwrta. (Mor. 318D)
There is no mistaking that Plutarch seems to be speaking of both monu-
ments as bearing this inscription. Since we have seen that the monument
discovered cannot have borne this inscription, it is reasonable to conclude that
46 So Velleius Paterculus 2.27.5 (J.V.P.D. Balsdon ["Sulla Felix," JRS 41 (1951) 1-101 10
n. 105 oddly ascribes this fact to Diodorus 38/39.15, which says nothing of the kind); see
also de viris illustribus 75.9. Plut. Sulla 34.2 discusses the title after the triumph over
Mithridates (celebrated on the 28th and 29th of January 81 [fast. Cap.]) but this has no
chronological validity. App. BC 1.452 records the opinion of two sources about the title.
One indicated that it derived from sycophants' flattery of him as being successful over his
personal enemies (81EVUXo0i)Va cir
roT; iXfP1it;).
This fits well with the death of
Marius
(eXOpoi
obviously represents the Latin inimici and refers to his political oppo-
nents in Rome and not to Mithridates, a hostis of the Roman People). The other associated
the title with the law voting him immunity for his actions (see n. 112). This again is an
event that follows his victory at the Porta Collina, dating the title to the period of his
return to Italy.
47 Balsdon (n. 46) 9-10.
Plutarch has erroneously ascribed to both monuments the inscription of the one
in the plain. Since Plutarch himself in the description of the monuments given
in the Life of Sulla mentions verbatim the inscription preserved on the hill
monument, it would seem that he knew better. Mentioning the two monuments
of his home town while making a passing reference to Sulla's titulature,
Plutarch carelessly conflated two similar monuments.
The second passage comes from a mention of Sulla's use of the title Felix:
acio56;
&
toY;
"EXUlat
ypadOCv Kat Xpil,artt4v, Eavr&v 'Eiawp66ttov
mvfyopEiE, Kcai nap
iliYv
?V roto tponatot; oirwS avayeypanrat AE?-
'cto; Kopvi'ktoo; 1XXa; 'Ela4po6&to;.
(Sulla 34.2)
First, we should note that Plutarch claims to be speaking of Sulla's usage of the
title
'Ena0po68to;
in "writing to and dealing with" the Greeks, and then cites
this usage for the trophies. But is writing an inscription on a trophy a manner of
writing to or dealing with the Greeks? No, it is a matter of a Roman magistrate
dedicating the spoils of victory to the gods. As we have seen, Plutarch himself
clearly implied when directly discussing the Chaeronean trophies that the
trophy on the plain was inscribed in Latin. How then can we reconcile the fact
that Plutarch does assert that the monument had the Greek title
'Ena0op68to;
on
it with his implication that monument had a Latin inscription, especially when
this implication seems to be confirmed by Sulla's practice in Sicyon and by the
practice of other Romans? The Authors take it as the "most economical"
solution to take the meaning of Moralia 318 and Sulla 34.4 as self-evident and
to assume that the monument in Chaeronea is in Greek, but they do not explain
why he specifies the inscription on the hill as being in Greek.48 One might
assume with Balsdon that Sulla used the title in Greek before he received the
Latin version, but there is no evidence for this.49 One might argue that the
Chaeronea monument was not erected until after Sulla's return to Italy, but here
there are chronological difficulties. The inscription in Sicyon was put up before
Sulla returned to Italy, as is indicated by the use of the title imperator and the
absence of Felix. It is hard to believe that Sulla could have made such a
dedication but not erected the trophy at the site of his signal victory over the
army of Archelaus until at least five years later following his return to Italy.
Balsdon suggests that the title was added later to the original inscription.50 It is
48 Authors (n. 22) 48 n. 16. There they reject Keaveney's suggestion that Plutarch's Latin
was "shaky" by pointing to his ruminations about the appropriate way to translate Felix in
Sulla 34.2. Consideration of a single word hardly points to fluency. In fact, in Demos.
2.2-3 Plutarch makes his ineptitude in Latin quite clear. Like many an undergraduate, he
did not come to the meaning of the Latin from the words, but instead understood the Latin
because he already knew what it was saying. Imagine if it did not say what he expected!
49 See p. 175, esp. n. 46.
50 Balsdon (n. 46) 10.
hard to see what the point of this would be, and no other inscriptions erected
during the proconsulship are 'updated' in this way.
The solution may lie in a certain lack of specificity on Plutarch's part. He
seems to say that the title
'Ena0p68tro;
appears on both monuments in Chaer-
oneia. As we have seen, this cannot be true of the monument on the hill, but
presumably was true of the monument on the plain. While Plutarch does show
himself to be familiar with the inscription on the former, one might wonder how
often he actually saw it. In ascribing the title to both, he may have erroneously
generalized from the plains monument to that on the hill. Unless we are to claim
that Plutarch is simply wrong, the title 'Eica4p66vro; must have appeared on the
former. But Plutarch nowhere states that the dedication of the monuments in
Chaeronea bore the title. In both passages where he associates the title with
those monuments, he states that Sulla used the title when writing to the Greeks
(rot; ? "EXXk-ot ou`o) F'ypa4e [Mor. 31 8D],toY; "EXXal(t
ypdclov Kai
XpT,ua-
tiuov [Sulla 34.4]). As a solution I would propose that the monument on the
plain had written on its base a later inscription which preserved the text of a
letter written by Sulla after he received the title in late 82. Such a letter was
most likely, though not necessarily, addressed to the Chaeroneans. Sulla's
victory monument may at first seem to be an odd place to preserve such a letter.
If. however, the letter was in some way connected with Sulla's treatment of the
city as a result of its role in the battle, this would not be an inappropriate place
for its preservation.51
Thus, the new discovery demonstrates that there were not two Sullan
victory monuments to the battle of Chaeronea. Instead, while he himself erected
a monument which had a Latin inscription on it and may also have preserved on
it a later letter of his, perhaps to the Chaeroneans, the new discovery turns out to
be a private commemoration of the fact that two Chaeroneans, Homoloichus
and Anaxidamus, were awarded the dptarrEta for their services in assisting
Sulla's victory.
III. When Did Sulla Receive his Second Acclamation as imperator?
RRC #359 is a controversial coin that alludes to Sulla's second acclamation as
imperator, bearing the legend IMPER(ator) ITERV(m) and portraying two
victory monuments. It used to be thought that the coin was issued before Sulla's
51 Apart from the services of Homoloichus and Anaxidamus, Chaeronea is twice attested as
having helped Sulla: a Chaeronean guided the passage of Sulla's legate Hortensius across
Parnassus when he returned with troops from Thessaly (Plut. Sulla 15.3), and a detach-
ment of Chaeroneans served with Sulla at the battle of Chaeronea (16.8). In a forthcoming
article in Klio ("Damon of Chaeronea: the Loyalties of a Boeotian Town during the First
Mithridatic War"), I discuss the reasons why the pro-Roman Chaeroneans may have had
particular cause to demonstrate their goodwill to Sulla.
return to Italy, and thus the inscription had to signify that when, as we know,
Sulla was hailed imperator following the battle of Chaeronea in 86, this was the
second occasion for this honor and presumably he had received an earlier,
unrecorded acclamation in Cilicia in the 90s. Crawford showed that the coin
was minted in Italy, though he confused matters by arguing on hoard evidence
that the coin was issued early in the campaign in Italy before the battle of the
Porta Collina. In a more recent article, Thomas R. Martin has demonstrated that
Crawford's criterion for dating the coin is invalid, and has argued that Sulla
received his second imperatorial acclamation after the battle of the Porta
Collina, which took place on November 1, 82.52 This article is well argued, but
it can nonetheless be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty that its thesis
is not correct. Sulla won his first acclamation in Cilicia and the second followed
the battle of Chaeronea. Since Martin's is the only account which is based on a
correct interpretation of the coin's place of minting and of the hoard evidence, I
will review Martin's arguments and show they do not necessarily lead to his
conclusion and that the alternative view is preferable. I discuss the evidence
under four rubrics (these generally correspond to Martin's main arguments,
though not to the order in which he presents them).
1) Multiple Imperatorial Acclamations
Martin begins with the premise that only one acclamation was permissible per
"campaign" and argues that Sulla must have been acclaimed after the battle of
Chaeronea, and hence that the other acclamation must either have preceded or
followed. The contention about Chaeronea is certainly correct. Sulla referred to
himself as imperator while rallying his troops at the battle of Orchomenos,
which followed that of Chaeronea. Accordingly, he must have been hailed
imperator at Chaeronea, his first victory in battle during the Mithridatic war.53
The contention about "campaigns" is not so obvious. The evidence for this
comes from Dio Cassius's notice that contrary to traditional procedure Claudius
was hailed imperator several times during the conquest of Britain, even though
the normal procedure was one acclamation per war.54 This may well represent
procedure under the Empire, when no one but the emperor himself was allowed
to be hailed imperator. The reason for Claudius's "greedy" attitude is obvious.
The whole purpose of the invasion of Britain was to create a martial reputation
52 T.R. Martin, "Sulla Imperator Iterum, the Samnites and Roman
Republican
Coin Propa-
ganda," SNR 68 (1989) 19-44.
53 The direct evidence for this is Front. strat. 2.8.12 and Amm. Marc. 16.21.41; Plut. Sulla
21.2, App. Mith. 49, 195 and Polyaenus strat. 8.9.2 also report the anecdote without
specifying the title. For discussion of this and other implicit evidence, see Martin (n. 52)
26.
54 ainoKcpdrOp tokkdKa; itwcovoji6aO
napa 'r& iardpta (ov6 yap cartv Evi oV&vt nxZov i
datia ?1C tOV aivtofv
noXigou
Tnv
eix6cXqcrv avUx,Tjv Xaotv)
(60.21.4-5).
for this new emperor, who had neither military prestige in his own right nor the
blood of Augustus in his veins. The situation under the Republic is not at all so
clear. No one before Sulla is recorded as a "multiple" imperator. Indeed, the
very fact of a single man being able to celebrate triumphs over many different
foes defeated over the course of a promagistracy (or in Marius's case repeated
consulships) that extended over several years was a comparative new situation.
Marius was offered to triumph over the Teutoni and Ambrones in 102 but
waited until he had defeated the Cimbri as well in the following year to
celebrate a single triumph.55 Perhaps this course set precedent. Certainly,
Pompey is only recorded as imperator ter, presumably to match his three
triumphs: one in 80 (or 81?) commemorating his victory in Africa, one in 71
commemorating his victory in Spain and finally one in 61 commemorating his
victories in the East.56 This suggests that the number of acclamations was
limited not by the number of wars but by the number of magistracies. This
feeling is confirmed when we look at the actual substance of Pompey's third
triumph. Pliny preserves for us the very praefatio to that triumph:
cum oram maritimam praedonibus liberasset et imperium maris populo
Romano restituisset, ex Asia Ponto Armenia Paphlagonia Cappodocia
Cilicia Syria Scythis ludaeis Albanis Hiberia insula Creta Basternis et
super haec de rege Mithridate atque Tigrane triumphavit. (NH 7.97)57
Clearly he could under these circumstances have had more than one accla-
mation in the East if he had desired and if this had been normal procedure.58 As
promagistrate (or magistrate) a general operated with his regular title until a
major victory in the field, at which point the troops hailed him as imperator,
this acclamation serving as a preliminary to the general claim to enter the city in
triumph. (After the triumph, of course, the title would lapse).59 The tendency in
55 Seen. 18.
56 For the dating of the first triumph, see E. Badian, "The Date of Pompey's First Triumph,"
Hermes 83 (1955) 107-18 and "Servilius and Pompey's Triumph," Hermes 89 (1961)
254-56.
57 Cf. the description of Valerius Maximus: de Mithridate et Tigrane, de multis praeterea
regibus plurimisque civitatibus et praedonibus unum duxit triumphum (8.15.8).
58 Note that Pompey already claimed the honor from his defeat of the pirates: when he met
Lucullus to assume the war against Mithridates, he already had laurel decorations on his
fasces (Plut. Pomp. 31.2, Lucull. 36.2). One might also compare Pompey's claim on the
trophy he erected in Spain that he had subdued 886 civitates (Pompeius Magnus tropaeis
suis quae statuebat in Pyrenaeo DCCCLXXXVI oppida ab Alpibus ad fines Hispaniae
Ulterioris in dicionem a se redacta testatus sit [Pliny NH 3.4.3, cf. 7.27.61). This activity
again resulted in a single acclamation as imperator and a single triumph. If multiple
acciamations were permissible leading up to a single triumph, one wonders why Pompey
did not receive more, when he was clearly interested in proclaiming the number of his
victories.
59 In the late Republic there was a tendency for this title to become permanent: see ILLRP
the later Republic was that once achieved the title imperator would be used
instead of the civil designation.60 In this context, an additional acclamation
served little function. Even if one celebrated a multiple triumph as Caesar did in
46, one was not any more of an imperator by virtue of a victory in a second war
fought during the course of the same promagistracy. If this is so, it makes more
sense to view Sulla's designation as imperator iterum as referring to his
acclamation at Chaeronea and the earlier one as referring to Cilicia.
2) Evidence for Sulla's Acclamation in Cilicia
Martin next attempts to refute evidence for such a Cilician acclamation. We
have direct if dubious attestation in the late Antique miscellany of various
information written by Ampelius. In that work, we have under the category of
Parthian kings the listing
Arsaces, fonna et virtute praecipuus, cuius posteri Arsacidae cognominati
sunt; qui pacem cum Sulla imperatorefecit. (31.2)
Clearly there is garbling here. The first Arsaces is not the man who made
peace with Sulla. In fact, Sulla made peace with Mithridates king of Pontus and
entered into a relationship of friendship with an envoy of Arsaces king of
Parthia.61 Festus refers to the same incident and calls Sulla pro consule, Martin
hastening to add that he "has it right" (29). But there is no real choosing be-
tween these two very late sources. Martin simply prefers that Festus be correct
in using the title pro consule. But of course Festus's title does not exclude the
imperatorial acclamation, and from the point of view of a late antique source,
the Republican use of the title would be confusing. After all Sulla was a
proconsul, and a late reference does not prove that he was not also an imperator.
Martin banishes to a mere reference in a footnote clear indication that
Sulla's Cilician campaign did involve military activity. Sulla was sent to restore
to his throne Ariobarzanes, whom the Romans had recently installed as king in
382, an inscription on the base of a statue raised in Pompey's honor by the people of
Auximum (quoted n. 122). This town was in the clientela of Pompey (see Plut. Pomp.
6.3-4) and their use of the title imperator so long after his triumph was a form of flattery.
Though there is some confusion, this is the context in which to interpret Dio's (43.44.2) and
Suetonius's (Div. Jul. 76.2) claim that Caesar was granted the praenomen imperatoris. In fact,
in 45 after the battle of Munda the senate allowed Caesar to retain permanently the regular title
imperator even after his triumph; see Mommsen (n. 16) 2.767.
60 See work cited by Martin (n. 52) 29 n. 38.
61 Martin (n. 52) 28 n. 33 notes that the Parthian king with whom Sulla entered into an
arrangement of friendship bore the personal name of Mithridates along with the title
Arsaces and implies that Ampelius was confusing him with the Pontic king of the same
name with whom Sulla did make peace. Yet both Plutarch (Sulla 5.4) and Festus (brevi-
arium 15) use only the name Arsaces, which suggests that Ampelius would probably not
have known of the personal name.
Cappadocia at the request of the locals. Sulla succeeds in this mission after
defeating Armenian troops and their Parthian commander Gordius, using most-
ly local troops:
ui8av
g.t-v
oiuv
)vagtv
ov)
noXX7-lv
Ct'?yero,
XpiadVevo;
8e
toY; aria-
xot; tpo&Vt4iot;,
Kcat
okkoXXo; jiv a&rdv Kanna8oixv i)iova;
8'
avi0t;
Apjieviov
npoapoflOobvTa; dnoicteivaq,
r6p&tov p?v ?nIXaasv, Apto-
Iap-advqv &? P&t1e aastkXa (Sulla 5.3).
Clearly this campaign involved a fair amount of military activity, and resulted
not only in accomplishing its main aim, but also in inducing the Parthian king to
seek the friendship of the Roman People for the first time.62 Once the campaign
is viewed in this light, the possibility of an imperatorial acclamation becomes
much less unlikely.
Martin cites several inscriptions from the east as indicating that Sulla
operated there in an official capacity in which he was not called imperator. Two
come from Delos, and both refer to L. Cornelius L.f Sulla pro cos. (ILLRP 349,
350). A Rhodian inscription lists a number of embassies undertaken by a man of
that island, including one (apparently) to Sulla
atpaMyor;
dvffijnato; PwoiaiOv
(ILS 8772=SIG3 745). Since Sulla seems to have used the title imperator after
his acclamation at Chaeronea, Martin wishes to ascribe these inscriptions to a
time before that battle, in particular to the period directly following his procon-
sulship in Cilicia. Thus it could be taken as proven that Sulla did not receive an
imperatorial acclamation in Cilicia. A review of these inscriptions shows that
they can be explained as coming from the early stages of the Mithridatic war,
and are thus not contradictory to the idea that Sulla received an imperatorial
acclamation in Cilicia.
Let us begin with the Delian inscriptions. One should consider what exactly
the inscriptions signify. Although there are various discussions of the signifi-
cance of these inscriptions, no one, as far as I am aware, has attempted a direct
exegesis of them. Both contain Sulla's name in the nominative case with no
verb. The nominative without a verb can signify two things in Latin inscrip-
tions. First, it can commemorate the name of the person who dedicated or erected
the monument thus inscribed.63 Second, it can be used as a rubric to indicate the
person portrayed in the monument. By the last days of the Republic and during
the Empire, this function was normally indicated by the dative case.64 The
62 For a discussion of the place of this fighting in the context of putting Ariobarzanes on his
throne, see Brennan (n. 8) 150-151. For the friendship with Parthia, see Plut. Sulla 5.4,
where it is also emphasized that Sulla was the first Roman to whom a Parthian king thus
applied.
63 E.g., ILLRP 326-28, 330, 333. Note that apart from the last example, all these instances
contain an ablative absolute (e.g., Carthagine capta) or dative (e.g., vico) to make the
sense of the omitted verb obvious.
64 Examples are extremely numerous. Note in the present context several dedications to
situation is not so clear for the second and early first centuries B.C. One can find
instances of the Greek usage of the accusative.65 There is also, however,
attestation of use of the "nominative of rubric," that is, of using a simple nomi-
native as indicating the subject of a work of art. This usage is attested for the
pre-Sullan period.66 LLRP 324 preserves the dedication on fragments of what
appears to have been a marble statue base: L. Manlius L. Acidinus triu(m)vir
Aquileiae coloniae deducundae. This inscription was found at Aquileia, and
Degrassi assumes in his commentary in ILLRP that the base on which it was
inscribed supported a statue of the colony's founder. ILLRP 325 is an inscrip-
tion written on the abacus of a marble column: M. Claudius M.f Marcelus
consol iterum. Degrassi again assumes that the column supported a statue of
Marcellus. From the Sullan period we have two highly relevant comparanda.
ILLRP 361 is from a statue base found on Delos: Q. Pompeius Q.f. Ruf(us) cos.
This inscription commemorates Sulla's colleague in the consulship. Since he
was killed in that year, the dedication dates from the time of Roman recovery of
the island after Sulla's defeat of Mithridates, which shows that the nominative
of rubric was in use on Delos at that time.67 The other comparandum is provided
by the equestrian statue erected in Sulla's honor before the rostra in the Roman
forum. The inscription on the base of that statue is preserved by Appian as
Kopv-Xkiou FivXka
'yEg6vo; ExkuXoZi;
(BC 1.451). The absence of the praenom-
en shows that Appian's version cannot be taken as literally true; hence we can
ignore the peculiar genitive. Gabba follows Balsdon in translating this as L.
Cornelio Sullae Felici Imperatori.68 In this context, however, scholars have
noted several dedications to Sulla as L. Comnelio Ff Sullae Felici dictatori
(ILLRP 352-356). In all these inscriptions there follows after the dative a
nominative of the dedicator. Sulla' s title in these inscriptions is clearly modeled
on the inscription of Sulla's equestrian statue in the forum. The basic correct-
ness of the forms in ILLRP 352-356 is demonstrated by RRC #381. This coin
Sulla as L. Cornelio F.f Sullae Felici imperatori (see discussion p. 175-176); also ILLRP
351. In SEG 25.1267, 1268 Greek accusatives are rendered in Latin with datives.
65 E.g., ILLRP 320, 337, 343, 359, 362-63, 369-370, 376. In all these instances one has the
nominative of the dedicator(s), which makes the syntax clear.
66 I. Calabi Limentani, L'epigraphia latina (1968) 239 asserts that "i resti epigrafici piui
antichi di statue di viventi con il nome del titolare della statua al nominativo non sono
dediche" and were not erected by the community but by man honored himself, who
received this right as a reward for services rendered. She cites no evidence for this
interpretation, and the phraseology she uses ("sembra cioV") indicates that it is merely a
guess, presumably motivated by the divergence of this earlier procedure from the later use
of the dative.
67 The word cos. was added by a different hand. As Degrassi notes in ILLRP, this does not
preclude the view that the inscription was erected as a posthumous honor.
68 E. Gabba (Appiani bellorum civilium liber primus [1958]) ad loc.; Balsdon (see n. 46) 4
with n. 50. Cf. ILLRP 351: L. Cornelio L.f
Sullae Feleici imperatori publice.
portrays an equestrian statue on the reverse, and has two variants for the
accompanying inscription. RRC subvariety la has L. SVLL FELI DIC, while lb
has L. SVLLA FELIX DIC. The latter demonstrates that the inscription on the
base was not in the genitive, as Appian indicates, but in the nominative, and that
Appian's 'yEJLcOv
does in fact represent dictator. The datives of ILLRP 352-
356 are to be explained as deriving from the syntactical necessity of those
inscriptions, which indicated not only the subject of the work of art but also the
identity of the dedicators. One can also guess on the basis of the derivative
inscriptions that the Roman inscription probably included Sulla's filiation but
this was omitted from the coin for reasons of space constraints. We can thus
reconstruct the inscription as L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla Felix dictator. It would
seem, then, that Sulla's statue was remarkable in more ways than simply being
the first equestrian image erected in the rostra.69 The inscription on it indicated
no dedicator at all but instead merely indicated the identity of the horse's rider.
As we have seen, this form of inscription was by no means unprecedented, and
this less usual form was doubtless chosen intentionally. The statue did not
represent the act of someone else in honoring Sulla: the dictator beloved of the
gods stood there in his own right in the nominative case, in no way subordinated
syntactically to a dedicator just as in the real world he was not subject to anyone
else's control.70
69 Cic. Phil. 9.13, Velleius Paterculus 2.61.3. Although H. Gesche ("Die Reiterstatuen der
Aemilier und Marcier," JMG 18
[19681 25-48 at 27 n. 6) is uncertain, it would seem,
given the evidence cited there, that the novelty of Sulla's statue was the placement of an
equestrian statue on the rostra.
70 It is interesting in this context to note the reverse of RRC #291. This portrays three arches
upon which rests an equestrian statue with the rider wearing a cuirass and wreath and
holding a spear. Around the border is the legend MN. AEMILIO and between the arches
LEP. Crawford (RRC #305) argues that this is the name of the moneyer on the grounds
that "since most Republican coin legends are of indeterminate case, the dative is hardly
significant," and rejects the notion that the legend indicates the name of the horseman
because "such a name should be in the nominative (see no. 381 for the only unequivocal
example)". I am not sure what the first argument means. If "indeterminate" means that the
case endings of the moneyers' names are regularly omitted, this is of course true, but
proves nothing about the case in which they appear. Study of the moneyers' names from
their first appearance down to the 49 indicates much evidence for the nominative and
some for the genitive. Certain instances of the nominative: #233, #248, #255, #259, #263,
#269, #271, #286, #288, #293, #300, #316, #335/9 and 10, #337, #342, #344, #347, #354,
#355, #356, #357, #362, #366, #369, #388, #391, #398, #399, #400, #402, #404, #405,
#409, #415, #417, #419, #421, #422, #425, #426, #428, #429, #430, #431, #432, #433,
#436, #439, #440, #442. There are also a number of forms which are almost certainly
nominative. These consist of first and third declension forms where it is not impossible
that the ending has been omitted (e.g., NATTA may represent Nattae and LABEO,
Labeonis). There is, however, no reason to think that such an abbreviation was used, but
for the sake of being conservative I class these forms as likely nominatives: #185, #186,
#205, #207(?=FLAVVS), #208, #215, #216, #229, #237, #258, #268, #270, #273, #274,
Now let us return to the inscriptions from Delos. ILLRP 349 (L. Cornelius
L.f Sulla pro cos.) is apparently the base of an equestrian statue.71 Hence there
should be no doubt that the inscription indicates that Sulla was the person
portrayed. ILLRP 350 (L. Cornelius L.f Sulla pro cos. I de pequnia quam con-
legia I in commune conlatam) is not so obvious. It is engraved on a capital of the
Doric order. Martin follows Keaveney and earlier scholars in suggesting that
Sulla visited Delos after his defeat of Mithridates's armies, and assumes that if
Sulla was personally involved in the erection of the Delian monuments after the
battle of Chaeronea, his title of imperator would have to have been used; hence
these inscriptions refer to an earlier activity on his part in the east, at a time
when he did not have the title. Martin ascribes this period to Sulla's "leisurely"
(30) return from Cilicia. But there is no evidence for any such visit.72 Further-
more, Martin does not directly address the issue of the sense of the phrase de
pecunia quam collegia in commune conlatam. It is not clear how he takes this,
but he suggests that Sulla may have used money provided by the collegia of
Delos.73 Degrassi had a similar explanation, suggesting that the verb obtulerunt
is to be understood in the relative clause.74 This will not do. Cicero's extensive
#276, #279, #292, #296, #301, #302, #305, #310, #330, #334, #340, #343, #348, #352,
#390, #392, #395, #407, #408, #410, #416, see #417, #418. There is also a much smaller
number of genitives: #243, #281, #306, #403, #412, #414, #424, #434. There is no way to
tell whether the many nomina ending only in -i (e.g., A. MANLI Q.F. SER. [#309]) are to
be taken as nominative or genitive. There is, however, not one single instance of the
moneyer's name appearing in the dative case. (What in any case would such a usage
mean?) It is conceivable that the form MANLIO represents the archaic spelling as in L.
Cornelio(s) L.f Scipio (ILLRP 310). Such a dropping of final S can be paralleled among
moneyers' names only in L. MINVCIV (#248), and even here the ending is -iu(s) (note
also that that form is anomalous, most dies having MINVCI). It is thus hard to avoid
concluding that #291 preserves the inscription of the statue in the dative case. In this case,
the coin does not directly name the moneyer, who was presumably some Aemilius
Lepidus (see n. 145 for another "implicit" naming of a moneyer).
71 So Degrassi in ILLRP.
72 For those supporting this suggestion, see Degrassi in ILLRP. It must be emphasized that
the hypothesis of a personal visit is merely a way of explaining the nominative of the
inscription when it is taken as indicating the dedicator. Once this assumption is removed,
there is no need for a personal visit by Sulla. Indeed, Plutarch informs us (Sulla 26. 1) that
Sulla spent three days in crossing with his entire fleet from Asia to the Piraeus in 84. One
would expect that the logistics of such an operation kept Sulla rather occupied.
73 Martin (n. 52) 29 mentions as possible dedicators "Sulla himself," "one of Sulla's
minions carrying out his wishes," and "some Italian traders operating on Delos who hoped to
anticipate what would flatter Sulla to good effect." The offering of these three alternatives
indicates that Martin has no definite interpretation of the meaning of the inscription.
74 Ad loc.: "Titulus integer est, unde in fine intellegas obtulerunt. Sulla igitur in monumen-
tum quoddam convertit pecuniam a collegiis sibi oblatam." The editors of In-scriptions
de Delos (on their ##1849, 1850) suggestedfecit to go with Sulla's name and dederunt to
go with the relative.
discussion of the money provided by the Sicilians to Verres for the erection of
statues in his honor (under duress as a form of extortion according to Cicero)
demonstrates that conferre itself is the verb used to describe the act of contrib-
uting money for this purpose.75 Cicero accuses Verres of forcing the Sicilians to
contribute money toward the erection of statues which will never be set up.
Clearly the money is still in Verres's possession and it is he who will erect the
statues.76 Could he then have inscribed the bases of these statues with the
inscription c. VERRES EX PECUNIA QUAM SICILIENSES CONTULERUNT? It would appear
not. Cicero argues that a limit has to be set on the number of statues to be
erected, and picks out Syracuse to illustrate what had happened. He first notes
that they erected statues to Verres, his son and his father.
Verum quotiens et quot nominibus a Syracusanis statuas auferes? Ut in
foro statuerent, abstulisti, ut in curia, coegisti, ut pecuniam conferrent in
eas statuas quae Romae ponerentur imperasti; ut idem darent homines
aratorum nomine, dederunt, ut idem pro parte in commune Siciliae confer-
rent, etiam id contulerunt. (2.2.145)
He later makes mention of these statues: huic etiam Romae videmus in basi
statuarum maximis litteris inscriptum a communi Siciliae datas (154).77 These
remarks are important for our purposes for two reasons. First they provide a
direct parallel for in commune conferre meaning "contribute into a fund" for the
purposes of raising a statue. Second, the inscriptions on the statues clearly
indicated that the contributors themselves erected the statues and not the dedi-
catee. This is exactly what one would expect from the inscriptions of monu-
75 See, for example, Verr. 2.2.141: ... pecunia quam tibi ad statuam censores
[sc.
Sicilian
magistrates] contulerunt; also ?? 137, 145, 148, 151, 152, 154, 157.
76 In ? 142 Cicero grants that Verres was still within the five years (legitimum illud
quinquennium) allowed by the lex de pecuniis repetundis for the erection of the statues,
but argues that if these sums are not included in the present accusation, no one will ever
accuse him because of them in future if he escapes conviction now and that in any case no
one could really believe that he was not going to divert into his own pocket the large sums
collected ostensibly for the statues. In pro Flacco 55-59 Cicero had to defend Flaccus
against a similar charge that he had taken funds left in Tralles for the purpose of cele-
brating games in honor of Flaccus's father, who had been propraetor in Asia in the 90s.
There, Cicero actually argues that since the games were never put on, the money could
have been taken by Flaccus pater and could have been claimed by any heir (? 59, reading
conlatam and ignoring Clark's supplement of uti). This is not the place to discuss how
this passage can be brought into harmony with Cicero's argument in the Verrines.
77 In Clark's OCT the words a ... datas are written in small capitals as if they were a
quotation of the actual inscription. However, not only is it difficult to think of any
epigraphic parallels to a dedication in the passive voice, but the pronoun huic at the front
of the sentence must also be construed with datas. Unless one imagines that Cicero spread
his literal indirect quotation throughout the sentence, it is easier to assume that he is
giving the sense of the dedications without trying to reproduce the wording exactly.
ments erected by collegia under the Empire.78 Since there is Republican attesta-
tion for the phrase de pecunia conlata in the sense of "from contributed
money," it is easiest to explain the garbling on ILLRP 350 as a confused con-
flation of that phrase and a fuller form with a relative clause in which the agent
of the conferre was to be expressed.79 That is, the composer intended to expand
de pecunia conlata as de pecunia quam collegia in commune contulerunt but
left the verb in the formulaic participial form. The sense of the prepositional
phrase would thus be "from money contributed (for this purpose) to the com-
mon fund by the collegia." What then does the inscription mean? Presumably
the column supported an image of Sulla, and while the nominative in the
inscription indicates the subject of the work of art, the prepositional phrase
indicates the source of the funds which were used to pay for it.80 The preposi-
tional phrase, which appears on two separate lines below the name of Sulla, is
syntactically disjoined from that name. The monument is thus a dedication by
the collegia of Delos, and there is no reason to associate the erection of these
monuments with Sulla himself.8' Hence one cannot argue that the failure to
record the title imperator on these inscriptions necessarily means that they have
to precede the battle of Chaeronea.
To maintain his argument that Sulla himself erected the monuments from
Delos in a period before Chaeronea, Martin has to argue around an inscription
from Halicarnassus (ILS 8771) which likewise omits the title imperator. He
suggests that this inscription may likewise come from the end of the Cilician
campaign, but concedes that the Halicarnassians may well have erected it after
Chaeronea and been unaware of Sulla's title of imperator, unlike the case in
Delos, though, as we have seen, the only evidence for his visit there is the very
inscriptions whose texts are explained by these visits. If Halicarnassus could
simply use the title of proconsul, then why should not the Delians? Dessau
suggested in 1LS that the most likely time for the Halicarnassian dedication was
78 For collationes made by such collegia for extraordinary expenses, see J.P. Waltzing,
Etude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains (1900) 4.644-47
(the normal expression is aes conferre, though CIL 6.10332 and 11034 appear to have
pecuniam conferre), esp. 646-47 for the erection of statues.
79 ILLRP 395: M. Minatius
Mf.
Pom. Sabinus turrem de sua pequnia, murum de pequnia
conlatafaciund(um) coeravit idemque probavit. The evidence cited in Waltzing (see the
preceding note) indicates that the normal Imperial expression was (ex) aere conlato. Why
the preposition and noun used in this expression should have changed is not clear.
80 Compare the comparable use of the nominative on a column capital supporting a statue
portraying M. Claudius Marcellus (see p. 182).
81 In a rather erratic discussion of the usage of the verb conlatio and kindred words, N.K.
Rauh, The Sacred Bonds of Commerce. Religion, Economy, and Trade Society at Hellen-
istic Roman Delos (1993) 270-87 assumes without argument (271) that "the Roman
collegia used the term conlata when they erected a statue of the proconsul L. Cornelius
Sulla and dedicated it de pecunia quam conlegia in commune conlatam," though his
quotation of the inscription in n. 61 on that page indicates a certain confusion.
when Sulla arrived in Asia to settle its affairs. One can also consider another
explanation for the titulature used on Delos. After Archelaus's conquest of the
island in late 88, we hear nothing more of it.82 It seems that it was evacuated by
Mithridates in accordance with the terms of the peace he made with Sulla at
Dardanus.83 The dedications ILLRP 349 and 350 may well then have been made
spontaneously by the Delians at the moment of their liberation before the
niceties of Sulla's titles became known.
Now let us turn to the Rhodian inscription. This famous inscription is a dedica-
tion to a man who carried out a number of embassies on behalf of Rhodes. The
beginning, including the name of the dedicatee, is lost, and the preserved text
begins in the middle of a list of Romans to whom he went on embassy:
xai oio[t't] Aeilictov KopviXtov AUKcioU [u]io[v...] arpatyo6v dvOinrxatov
'Pwiia[i]ov xai itoo't AeuIctov Kopvi'ktov Avliou uviov AevTeXov cai
toxt XE1KtOV Atcivtov ASXKiou Mo-up'v[av]
i'Vepdropa
xp6tEvov icai
vElpyktaV ToVb 8[ou] ica. noxri AeU'ictov Atcivtov ASUKiov iAov
AetVKo[XXov]
avtiagiav
Kcai noit' AvXov TCp?vttov AiuXou [v]idv
Ouaxppov[a]
IpeaPvuatv
'Poaiov. (ILS 8772=SIG3 745.1-11)
There are numerous difficulties involving the identification of the men
named in this inscription. The cognomen of the first preserved name is lost, but
may well be Sulla. It is on this assumption that the titulature of this inscription
must be explained.84 Let us begin with what we know for certain. The list
consists of five officials: two proconsuls, one imperator, one proquaestor and a
legate. The imperator is L. Licinius Murena, who as proconsul in Asia resumed
the war against Mithridates in the late 80s and triumphed in 8 185 L. Lucullus is
82 Degrassi dated ILLRP 349 to early 87, associating it with the revolt of the Italians on the
island against the Athenian government, which had gone over to Mithridates (Posidonius
apud Athenaeus 214D-215B [=FGrHist 87 F36, frag. 253 in the edition of L. Edelstein
and I.G.
Kidd]).
The Italians initially prevailed against Apellicon, but in the fall of 88
Archelaus conquered the island for the Athenians (App. Mith. 28, Paus. 3.23.3
[who
ascribes the capture to Menophanes (presumably a subordinate of
Archelaus)l).
Hence
the island fell under the control of Mithridates's forces before Sulla became proconsul.
83 It is true that after Lucullus collected a naval force among Rome's allies in North Africa
and Rhodes, he advanced north. It would seem, however, that he sailed along the shore of
Asia Minor from Rhodes to Pitane, avoiding the central islands of the Aegean. He is said
by Plutarch (Lucull. 3.3) to have liberated Cos, Cnidus, Samos, Colophon and Chios,
locations on the eastern shore of the Aegean. Thus Delos remained in the control of
Mithridates until he was forced by Sulla to withdraw from he conquests (cav ...
i4aydyiq
O? sat Xas poupca; ?K xdavuo.v
4OpouplCov,
X%opt; (Ov
bKpaTprc
xp6O TrfjS r; 5 apaacrov-
SiSaew;
[App. Mith. 223])
84 No alternative L. Cornelii readily suggest themselves. If the man was someone else, the
inscription naturally becomes irrelevant for present purposes.
85 For Asia as Murena's provincia, see n. 95.
clearly Sulla's proquaestor; A. Terentius A.f. Varro was the legate of Murena.86
This leaves us with L. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus, who, like the putative Sulla, is
given the title proconsul. This man's identity is very difficult to ascertain. He is
perhaps the mysterious praetor L. Lentulus alluded to in the pro Archia.87
Perhaps he is the son of the quaestor L. Cornelius Ser. f. Lentulus commemorat-
ed in an inscription of Delos, apparently in the late second century (Insc. de
Delos 1694).
The next step in investigating this inscription is to consider the order in
which the names are afranged. First, it is by rank: proconsuls first, quaestor
second, finally legate. What of the proconsuls? Since Murena is called impera-
86 On this man, see D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950) 2.1118 n. 20.
87 In pro Archia 7, Cicero informs us that Q. Metellus Pius, pr. 89 (for the date see A.
Keaveney and J. Madden, "Metellus Pius: The Evidence of Livy, Epitome 76," Eranos 81
[1983] 47-51 at 48-50), kept such careful records ut ad L. Lentulum praetorem et ad
iudices venerit et unius nominis litura se commotum esse dixerit. Clearly this L. Lentulus
was presiding over a iudicium publicum (the idiom venire ad praetorem ac iudices means
to appear before a court in any capacity; see in particular Verr. 2.1.30). The
question
is,
when did it meet? We know that apart from the quaestio Variana the courts closed in
Rome at the start of the Social War (Cic. Brut. 304) and that the quaestio inter sicarios
had not met for some time before the case against Sex. Roscius in 80 (pro Roscio Amerino
11). Presumably, the courts re-opened in 86 and shut down once more in 83 with the
return of Sulla (Cicero's trienniumfere ... sine armis [Brutus 308]). Now, Metellus was
acting as propraetor until Sulla's return (App. BC 1.365) and engaged in an attempt to
seize Africa in 84 (Liv. per. 84, Plut. Crass. 6; clearly this campaign is what lurks behind
the reference to Auyuari4 in App. BC 1.365, whether the error is to be attributed to a
scribe or to Appian himself [MRR takes Metellus to have been the legitimate governor,
but the wording Liv. per. 84 indicates that he was trying to overthrow the legitimate
governor, Q. Fabius Hadrianus, who was presumably a legatus pro praetore (whence the
confusion in Pseudo-Asconius [216St1])D. After his consulship in 80 he was proconsul
in
Spain until his return in 71. The question is, when did Metellus abandon Italy for Africa?
App. states the he went over to Sulla &6v Kivvav Kai Maptov E;
;rv
n6ktv oinc gCTE0iV
iXX' ?v i At,uati8tr6 jX0 Xov
neptwpopv
(BC 1.365 with the necessary emendation of
the meaningless Atyi(rri&), but this cursory statement cannot bear much weight. Cer-
tainly, the appearance of Metellus referred to by Cicero, which apparently concerned the
entries in the praetor's records of those like Archias making professiones under the lex
Papiria Plautia, is more likely in the mid 80s than in the 60s (Archias's case in 63 was
presumable not typical). Since App. BC 1.365 directly attests his retention of proconsular
imperium because of his failure to enter Rome, one must then suppose that if the meeting
took place in the period after the death of Marius and before Metellus's departure
for
Africa, the praetor Lentulus and his iudices met Metellus outside the pomerium. It is hard
to imagine that Metellus's actions against Hadrianus preceded the death of Cinna in early
84 (for the significance of this event in the collapse of opposition to Sulla, see E. Badian,
Studies in Greek and Roman History [1964] 228-29), and perhaps his departure for Africa
should not be placed any earlier. It is possible, then, that Metellus remained outside the
city in the mid 80s, refraining from political activity and retaining his imperium, and that
during this time he agreed to appear before the praetor and iudices outside the pomerium.
tor but the putative Sulla only proconsul, then the embassy to Sulla must have
taken place before the battle of Chaeronea.88 Accordingly, the proconsuls are
arranged chronologically by the order in which they were visited. The embassy
to Lentulus must intervene between that to Sulla and that to Murena.89 Since
Lentulus does not figure in the accounts of the Mithridatic war, Martin con-
cludes that the most likely period for Sulla to be honored as proconsul was in
the 90s.90 But why does Lentulus have to figure in the Mithridatic war? New
governors would be needed for Asia and Cilicia only after Mithridates evacuat-
ed these areas as a result of the Peace of Dardanus. Hence, by definition the new
governors would only be prominent if they came from Sulla's retinue. It is true
that this assumption is generally made about Murena, but this may be incorrect.
A Murena is attested as a subordinate of Sulla in his Greek campaign.9' Since L.
Murena is directly attested as triumphing ex praetura (Cic. Mur. 15), it is
assumed that he must have been praetor in 88 and accompanied Sulla on his
campaign. That a propraetor with full imperium should have been attached to a
proconsul is hard enough to believe, that he would have commanded a section
of the army directly commanded by that proconsul is beyond belief. That is
what legates and quaestors do, not (pro)praetors. Furthermore, Memnon direct-
ly attests that the Murena who triumphed over Mithridates was sent out by the
senate.92 While Memnon is perhaps not the most reliable witness, Sulla did in
fact tolerate the senate's appointment of at least one governor in his sphere (L.
Scipio Asiagenus in Macedonia).93 Certainly, Appian gives no indication that
88 Murena appears to have had a personal opinion about the translation of the title. At any
rate, it is only in a different inscription to him (IG 5.1.1454) that the word is transliterated
into Greek rather than being translated by the Greek word a-toKpdatOp. This is a strong
indication that ILS 8772 preserves the titles as the Roman concerned himself wished them
to be rendered, and this in turn makes it all the more important to explain Sulla's being
called merely atpanoy6v dvOi6atov
'Poga[i]ov,
if Sulla it be.
89 While it was recognized in earlier discussions that Sulla's titulature pre-dates 82, failure
to appreciate the significance of the lack of the title imperator vitiates those discussions;
for a convenient review see F. Munzer, RE 4 (1900) s.v. Cornelius 194 cols. 1369-71.
90 Martin (n. 52) 30.
91 Plut. Sulla 17.3, 7, 18.2, 19.4; App. Mith. 32, 43.
92 iapca
M-;
avyKX1irou 8E Moipivac
lyeg)v
ncursetat (FGrHist 434 F26. 1).
93 Asiagenus was presumably the first Roman governor after Macedonia was freed by the
peace of Dardanus. C. Sentius seems to have been overcome (App. Mith. 137, 156,
Memnon 26 [FGrHist 434 F22. 1), and the fact that Sulla and his legate Hortensius fought
Illyrian tribes at the time of the Peace of Dardanus (Gran. Lic. 35.79-81, App. Mith. 225,
de vir ill. 75.7, Livy per. 83, Eutrop. 5.7.1) shows that there was still no governor there in
85. Since Asiagenus is attested there is 84 (so Jerome Chr. and apparently Appian ll. 13
[on the assumption that rptacoomrv should be emended to tptaKoO<toG>T6v and that the
reference is to the Gallic sack of Rome, dated to 386 (see F.W. Walbank, A Historical
Commentary on Polybius I
[19571 46-47)]), P. Gabinius, pr. 89 (for the date, see
Keaveney and Madden [see n. 871), must have been governor there in the late 80s (Cic.
the Murena left in Asia was anyone other than the man who earlier served Sulla
in Greece. However, if there were two Murenas, then it would not be surprising
if Appian confused them. In the Brutus (237, 31 1) Cicero mentions a P. Murena
as a competent orator who died at the time of Sulla's return.94 Conceivably, if
this man, who may well have been L. Murena's brother, served Sulla in Greece,
his presence in Sulla's army made Lucius agreeable as a governor in Asia. In
that case, L. Murena, like Asiagenus, was a praetor in the mid 80s and served as
a regularly appointed propraetor of Asia after its liberation from Mithridates
under the Peace of Dardanus.95 It is also possible that L. Murena was one of
div. in Caec. 64) before the arrival of Cn. Cornelius Dolabella cos. 80 in 79. Asiagenus
could have arrived in 85 after the peace, since he was presumably praetor in 86 (the latest
possible date for his praetorship under the lex annalis, since he was consul in 83). He was
presumably elected consul in absentia (since professio in person was not necessary in 63
[Cic. de leg. agr. 2.241 and Pompey was elected in absence in the unusual year of 52; such
a trivial irregularity could have been accepted in the far more perilous situation in 84; see
Mommsen [n. 16] 1.503 n. 3 for professio in absentia and 1.525 for L. Lucullus's
exemption from the prohibitions against direct continuation of offices).
94 In Brutus 311 Cicero describes the effect of the civil war on oratory: ... crudelis interitus
oratorum trium Scaevolae Carbonis Antisti, reditus Cottae Curionis Crassi Lentulorum
Pompei, leges et iudicia constituta, recuperata res publica; ex numero autem oratorum
Pomponius Censorinus Murena sublati. A.E. Douglas, M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus (1966)
224 suggests that the three marked out with the euphemistic sublati were Marians, in
contrast with the crudelis interitus of those killed by Damasippus. Certainly, if the
Marcius of App. BC 1.88-93 is the man in the Brutus, then he was a firm opponent of
Sulla, but there is no inherent reason why Cicero should only have mentioned Sullan
orators who were killed in Damasippus's massacre. It would be surprising that Sulla put
such confidence in L. Murena if his brother was an opponent of his. It is remarkable that
if, as seems to be the case from his inclusion in the list of oratory's losses from the civil
war, P. Murena was a speaker of some note, he does not figure in the list of those who
were prominent in the year 89 (Brutus 305), nor in that of those prominent in the years
intervening before Sulla's return (Brutus 307). Presumably, he was not in Rome, and a
position in Sulla's army would explain his absence.
95 The desire to associate L. Murena imperator with the subordinate of Sulla drove Broughton
(MRR 2.62 n. 4) to the desperate suggestion that Murena was simply a "holder of
imperium pro praetore" and that any irregularities were overcome by the later law
legitimizing Sulla's acts. The very title imperator, available only to those who held
imperium in their own right (Mommsen [n. 16] 1.126-7), suffices to disprove this. The
fact that Cicero refers to Murena having triumphed ex praetura (Cic. pro Mur. 15) should
also indicate that he had been a regularly appointed magistrate. Furthermore, if Appian is
correct in stating that Sulla's provincia was not just the war against Mithridates but also
Asia
(ckT1poulggvow
oe &rV -6ndr&v
EXaXe gv
KopvrkXto; IXXDAa; dpXF-iv tfj; Aaia;
Kat i noXetiev 1x, MtOptin~ [Mith. 84]), then if Sulla had simply left Murena behind as
his representative, Murena would simply have been a legatus pro praetore (Mommsen [n.
16] 1.683 with n. 5 [the legatus pro praetore of ILLRP 372 stood in place of Lucullus in
the third war against Mithridates, not Sulla in the first, as Mommsen thought]) and would
have had no right to triumph in his own right (Mommsen 1. 130).
Sulla' s officers and was elected in absentia as praetor.96 What then of Lentulus?
If Murena was the first governor of liberated Asia, then Lentulus is likely to
have been the first governor of Cilicia after its liberation from Mithridates.97
These arrangements would have been made in late 85 and early 84 after the
Peace of Dardanus.98
A. Keaveney, Sulla. The Last Republican (1982) 115 calls Murena governor of Cilicia,
but he was clearly governor of Asia; so App. Mith. 265. The correctness of Appian's
reference to Asia is confirmed by Murena's having ordered that ships be built by the
Milesians and other inhabitants of Asia (Cic. Verr. 1.89). Keaveney has been thrown off
by Appian's reference to Murena's ineffectual efforts against the pirates (Mith. 426). It is
clear that the pirates were infesting the Aegean (Mith. 262-63), and thus Murena's efforts
were directed merely at clearing them out of those waters, not at attacking them directky
in Cilicia. In "Who were the Sullani?" (Klio 66 [1984] 114-50 at 118-19) Keaveney
elaborates on this idea. He argues that Murena had actually been sent out as proconsul for
Cilicia for 88. The argumentation for this at the end of the section on Murena is
confusing, and as far as I can tell all the evidence he cites as showing Murena operating in
Cilicia in fact concerns Asia. (Keaveney adheres to his interpretation in Lucullus: A Life
[1992] 214 n. 31, despite criticism; H. Pohl, Die romische Politik und die Piraterie im
ostlichen Mittelmeer vom 3. bis zum 1. Jh. v. Chr. [1993] 258-59 accepts Asia as
Murena's province, but adds nothing to the argument.)
96 We know very little of the efforts of those in Rome to accommodate Sulla in the mid 80s
before Cinna's death, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that Murena was elected
in absentia as a means of regularizing the government of Asia following the Peace of
Dardanus without antagonizing Sulla (see n. 98). If this is so, it would not be surprising
that in the aftermath of Sulla's return this form of election was politely ignored.
97 In Document #3 in J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (1982), Q. Oppius, the proconsul
there at the time of Mithridates's conquest, is found writing from Cos to the Aphrodisians
in response to an embassy from them soliciting his patronage. He was presumably staying
there after his release following the Peace of Dardanus before returning to Rome. (Note
that 6ocav 6i; 'Pc6iTv napaygvoicai
8taaa0a(Y(o
[11. 47-48] is not to be translated as
"when-ever I am in Rome" [so Reynolds], but "when I arrive in Rome, I will make
known." [The Greek translation of the letter is a bit garbled at this point; the initial 6no>o
does not introduce a clause of effort but renders an indirect question in Latin; the original
was presumably something like utque haec a vobis facta sint senatui et populo cum
Romam vernero planum faciam.]) His term of office was apparently expired, though of
course he retained his imperium until he crossed the pomerium again. Thus, title notwith-
standing, he was no longer the proconsul of Cilicia.
This document (which demonstrates that Oppius was in fact proconsul and not, as was
sometimes argued, a legatus) combined with M. Antonius's presence as proconsul fol-
lowing his praetorship in 102, the mention of Cilicia having been made a provincia prae-
toria in the so-called lex de provinciis praetoriis of 100 (RS 12 Cnidos col. 3.36-37), and
Sulla's presence there in the 90s-all this should put an end to the wearisome question of
when Cilicia was made a "province" (for the background to this dispute, see P. Freeman,
"The Province of Cilicia and its Origins," in P. Freeman and D. Kennedy [eds.], The
Defense of the Roman and Byzantine East [ 1986] 253-275). Whatever the exact juridical
What then of the failure to note Sulla's title as imperator? The embassy
commemorated on the stone would have taken place early in the Mithridatic
war before Sulla's victory at Chaeronea. Rhodes had been the site in which
status and territorial extent of this provincia, this evidence is as clear a demonstration of
a continued Roman presence in Cilicia as one could expect for such a poorly attested
period.
98 In the pre-Sullan period, the elections were presumably held in the last two months of the
year, that is, after 153 B.C. in November or December (see Mommsen [n. 16] 1.583, 585).
The arrangements for the promagistracies may normally have taken place early in 84,
though conceivably special provisions had been made at the time of the elections in late
85. News of his defeat of Mithridates probably reached Rome around October 85 (Gabba
[n. 68] ad App. BC 1.347), and thus the provisions for Asia and Cilicia could have formed
part of the efforts made to come to an accommodation with Sulla. App. BC 1.354 dates the
consular elections for 84 to a period after the embassy was sent to Sulla in response to his
letter of demands which he sent following the defeat of Mithridates. Gabba ad loc. prefers
per. 83 (cum L. Cinna et Cn. Papirius Carbo, a se ipsis coss. per biennium creati,
bellum ... praepararent, effectum est ... ut legati ad Syllam de pace mitterentur), which he
takes as indicating that the elections preceded the embassy, but one can hardly put such
weight on the implication of a participial phrase in the miserable epitomator's account.
Even if the elections did precede the embassy to Sulla, the appointments could have been
made as a gesture of goodwill. (That war preparations were being implemented in Italy
does not preclude concomitant efforts at reconciliation with Sulla. There is no reason why
the adherents of Cinna should not have hoped for the best while preparing for the worst.)
That no mention of the need for a governor in Asia is mentioned in the letter of Sulla
preserved in App. BC 1.350-52 should not surprise, since it is a later doctoring of Sulla's
letter (see Badian [n. 87] 226). The embassy visited Sulla in the winter of 85/4 and
returned that spring with a mild answer from him (App. BC 1.360-62, per. 84). Along
with them on their return came envoys from Sulla, who got no further than Brundisium
and returned to Sulla after learning of the death of Cinna that spring and of the resulting
anarchy in Rome (App. BC 1.362). The collapse of the opposing coalition following
Cinna's death was the cause of Sulla's decision to invade Italy (see Badian [n. 871
228-
29). There is no reason why he should not have abided by senatorial dispositions of the
eastern provinces if these dispositions had been made with the intention of pleasing him.
Finally, one should consider L. Manlius Torquatus, who is attested as serving with Sulla
as proquaestor in the late 80s (apart from issuing RRC#367 discussed below [p. 198-205]
he took part in the battle of the Porta Collina [Plut. Sulla 29.41; as noted by Keaveney,
Lucullus [n. 95] 29 he was probably Murena's quaestor, whom Sulla took over when he
left Lucullus in the east). If it is true that Lucullus was the only officer who remained
loyal to Sulla in his march on Rome in 88 (App. BC 1.253), then this Torquatus must have
come at a later stage. G.V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and
Chronology (1973) 128-29 argues that he was born about 110. Since it would seem that
the age for holding the quaestorship
in the pre-Sullan period was the late twenties (see
Mommsen [n. 161 1.566), then a date for Torquatus's quaestorship before about 85 would
seem to be precluded. (Inschriften von Priene 121.23 was emended to show M. Silanus as
quaestor of Murena, but the emendation is probably to be rejected: see Magie [n. 861 1126
n. 43.) The only source of new quaestors would of course be Rome, which is further
evidence for Sulla's cooperation with the government there.
many Italians in Asia, including L. Cassius the governor of Asia, sought refuge
at the time of Mithridates' s conquest of the province, and it famously withstood
an assault of Mithridates by land and sea in 88 (App. Mith. 24-27). Under these
circumstances it would hardly be surprising if the Rhodians hazarded the
attempt to send an envoy to meet Rome's representative in the war against
Mithridates in the year and a half that intervened between his arrival in Greece
and his victory at Chaeronea in 86. In fact, we can guess at exactly the
circumstances under which the envoy met Sulla. Appian informs us that Sulla
summoned ships from Rhodes after he had withdrawn to Eleusis following the
failure of his initial assault on the Piraeus. When Sulla learned that they could
not provide ships because of Mithridates's naval supremacy, he sent Lucullus to
summon help from Rome's allies to the south.99 It can reasonably be suggested
that our nameless Rhodian came on the return voyage of the ship Sulla had sent
to Rhodes, in order to give Sulla the bad news in person (and presumably
explain the dire straits in which the Rhodians found themselves). And this
would be in the period before the capture of Athens, not to mention the battle of
Chaeronea. Thus, it would have been completely in order for Sulla to lack the
title imperator. On Martin's interpretation, there is, depending on the date we
give to Sulla's proconsulship in Cilicia, a gap of a decade or more between the
embassy to Sulla and the one to Murena in Asia, with Lentulus's intervening.'l0
If the reconstruction I have just offered is valid, however, the embassies form a
compact unit in the mid to late 80s.
Thus, while the nature of the evidence does not exclude Martin's interpretation,
the latter is by no means the only explanation. Indeed, it would be surprising
that we should have so much attestation of Sulla's activities in the east when he
was departing from his supposedly insignificant Cilician campaign in the 90s
but virtually none from the time when he had won such signal victories against
Mithridates's armies and exerted such power in the east. It seems more plausi-
ble to interpret the inscriptions as dating to the time of his campaign against
Mithridates.
3) Sulla's Supposed Triumph for the Victory outside the Porta Collina
On Nov. 1, 82 the consul of dubious legitimacy, M. Marius the younger, was
being besieged in Praeneste by Sulla's subordinate, Q. Lucretius Ofella. On that
99 App. Mith. 131. Actually, Appian says that Sulla summoned
(givreirejtato)
the ships
from Rhodes, and sent Lucullus since the Rhodians could not sail over (Poihov ov
8vvq0vsxv
btanXz5aa
Oakaaaoicparoi3v?o;
rof MtOpt8daou). Clearly, a ship had
been sent to Rhodes and returned with news that Rhodes did not have the ships to spare.
100 The gap is more than a decade and a half if one accepts (as I do) the arguments of Badian
(n. 98) 157-78 to lower the date of Sulla's praetorship to 97; for a review of later argu-
ments in favor of the traditional date of the praetorship to 93 and for further support of
Badian, see Brennan (n. 8) 132-37.
day, Sulla defeated outside the Porta Collina of Rome the Samnite army
commanded by Telesinus, which had come to the aid of Sulla's enemies, the
magistrates in Rome. Martin wishes this to be the occasion of Sulla's second
acclamation as imperator. First there is the problem of being hailed as impera-
tor in a victory over citizens.'01 The ancient sources are clear that this was not
possible. The question then becomes, were the Samnites citizens? Martin at
length demonstrates that they were not in Sulla's estimation, and for the
question of the permissibility of a triumph Sulla's judgment was all that
counted.'02 This does not mean, however, that Sulla did in fact receive an
acclamation on this occasion, and the evidence to show that he did is weak.
It is well known that in honor of this victory Sulla added to the ludi of the
Republic a new set of games, the ludi victoriae Sullanae.'03 Martin notes that
after the battle of Chaeronea, where Sulla seems to have been hailed as impera-
tor, he established some Greek ktvijKcta, or victory games. Martin thus sug-
gests that there may have been a similar acclamation at the Porta Collina. But
this of course does not follow. Sulla won a victory at Chaeronea, for which a
trophy was erected and games celebrated. There is no doubt that he won another
victory at the Porta Collina and set up further games to commemorate it. But no
imperatorial acclamation is necessary for this.
Martin also alludes in a suggestive manner to the famous incident in which
Valeria ingratiated herself with Sulla, calling him ai5toicpd-rop (imperator) and
referring to his
eUvvXtia,
an allusion to his new name of Felix.04 This event
took place at a Ocxa
uovoi6Xawv,
and Martin asserts that "it seems very likely
that the gladiatorial games at which Valeria saw Sulla were part of the victory
games Velleius tells us that Sulla instituted".'05 Martin needs to get around the
fact that Plutarch describes this anecdote as having taken place in a theater,
while Velleius Paterculus speaks of circus games:
Felicitatem diei quo Samnitium Telesinique pulsus est exercitus Sulla per-
petua ludorum circensium honoravit memoria, qui sub eius nomine Sulla-
nae victoriae celebrantur. (2.27.6)
He argues: "We cannot tell whether these authors have been accurate in
their use of this particular terminology for spectacles, and we certainly need not
101 For the evidence for the impermissibility of imperatorial acciamations for victories over
citizens, see Martin (n. 52) 37.
102 Martin (n. 52) 39-41.
103 It would appear that in the pre-Caesarian period these games were called simply ludi
Victoriae (Cic. Verr. 1.31, RRC #421, so too the Fast. Maff.) and only later did they
acquire the adjective Sullanae (Velleius Paterculus cited in text, and the Fast. Arv. and
Sab.) in order to distinguish them from the ludi victoriae Caesaris (Suet. Div. Aug. 10. 1,
Cic. Fam. 1 1.28.6): T. Mommsen, Geschichte des romischen Munzwesens (1860) 625.
104 Plut. Sulla. 35.4, discussed by Martin (n. 52) 36.
105 Martin (n. 52) 36 with n. 58.
assume that the initial, 'irregular' celebrations of Sulla's games took place in
the same way and in the same place as did later, regular celebrations".
106
In the
first place, there is no reason not to assume that they were being exact. Plutarch
goes out of his way to explain that the viewing of the gladiatorial shows was not
yet divided by sex, an institution established only by Augustus (Suet. Div. Aug.
44.2). Hence, he must explain to his contemporaries how Valeria could have
been seated next to Sulla. He is apparently quite certain that this event was a
gladiatorial munus. On the other hand, Velleius is completely correct. The ludi
victoriae Sullanae were a regular part of the ludi of the Roman Republic. If
Sulla's victory games were institutionalized in the form of ludi, then there is
every reason to expect that this was the original, "irregular" form. If the original
games were not ludi, why should they have been perpetuated in that form? And
it must be emphasized that gladiatorial contests never formed a part of ludi.107
The ludi were the formal holiday games of the Republic. They stretched over
many days. The first days being taken up with various theatrical events, the ludi
culminated in chariot races on the final day. Gladiatorial shows, even when put
on by magistrates, were always private affairs under the Republic, usually
associated with funerary rites. Even under the Empire, when gladiatorial con-
tests were regular events, they maintained their terminological distinction -
gladiatorial shows were always called munera in contradistinction to the ludi of
the circus, which never contained a gladiatorial element. Hence, the gladiatorial
event at which Valeria chatted up Sulla had nothing to do with his own victory
or with the ludi victoriae Sullanae.108
Now none of this really affects the major issue: was Sulla acclaimed im-
perator on November 1, 82 after the battle outside the Porta Collina? Such an
acclamation suggests a claim to be allowed to triumph. To be sure, the impera-
torial acclamation and the triumph were never directly joined in theory.109 Yet
in practice they were joined. L. Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of King
Perseus, was hailed imperator three times, and this was later taken to imply
three triumphs."0I Is it possible that Sulla could have implied such a claim and
106 Martin (n. 52) 36 n. 58.
107 On the character of the ludi and munera and their distinction under both Republic and
Empire, see conveniently J.V.P.D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome (1969)
248-50.
108 In any case, the way that Valeria simply comes up to Sulla from behind indicates that he
was a regular spectator. Even if the first ludi victoriae Sullanae were put on by Sulla's
nephew Sex. Nonius Asprenas (as seems to be the sense of the reverse legend of RRC
#421), the man in whose honor the games were being held could hardly have simply sat in
the audience like any other spectator. It would seem that the gladiatorial event attended by
Sulla and Valeria was simply a normal presentation offered by someone else.
109 See R. Combbs, Imperator (recherches sur 1 'emploi et la signification du titre d 'imperator
dans la Rome republicaine) (1966) 118-19.
110 See Degrassi's commentary on ILLRP 392.
not celebrated a triumph, especially if he could portray the victory as having
been won against the Samnites, whom he did not consider citizens?
To answer this question, we must consider Sulla's position at this moment.
He was in a position to revive the office of dictator, now dormant for 120 years,
and to have himself elected to it in an unprecedented manner: with no six-month
limit and for the purpose of writing laws and restoring the constitution (legibus
scribundis et rei publicae consitituendae). "
I I
He was in a position to have a law
passed legitimizing all his past actions and all those he was to carry out in
future. 112 He was in a position to have another law passed allowing him to draw
up a list of citizens, who could be murdered with impunity, whose property was
to be confiscated and whose children were to be barred from office. "3 That he
possessed a position of unquestioned power was made unmistakably clear to all
those who had ears on the day after the battle of the Porta Collina. Sulla
summoned a meeting of the senate to the temple of Bellona in the Campus
Martius. In itself this location was unobjectionable. It allowed a magistrate with
imperium to address the senate directly, since he would lose his imperium if he
entered the city. Yet Sulla could, for instance, have summoned the senate to the
temple of Concordia in the city and had a letter read, telling of his desire to
reconcile his enemies and end the shedding of civil blood. Instead, he had a
rather different message to deliver. While speaking to the senators, he had
thousands of captives from the battle executed at the nearby villa publica. This
operation created a considerable amount of noise, the nature of which can be
imagined and the result of which was a not unreasonable consternation on the
part of the senators. At this, with unmoved countenance Sulla enjoined the
senators to listen to his speech and not to stick their noses into the matters going
on outside."4 The message was obvious. The power over life and death was in
the hands of L. Cornelius Sulla, and all who opposed him could expect nothing
but a swift and merciless death. And the extraordinary powers were voted for
him in quick order. In this context is it conceivable that Sulla would have been
denied whatever honor he wished for his victory at the Porta Collina? In fact, he
appears to have asked for none, as we can see from a reference in Cicero.
In the Fourteenth Philippic, Cicero discusses the (erroneously) optimistic
initial reports about the battle of Mutina. P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus had
proposed a supplicatio in response to the apparent victory of the forces of the
consuls and of C. Caesar, the future emperor Augustus. Cicero seized upon this
111 For the title see Gabba (n. 68) on App. BC 1.462.
112 MRR 2.66. For present purposes the argument about whether he was indemnified for past
acts (and it is hard to conceive why he should not have been if his future acts were
authorized) does not matter.
113 MRR 2.69, where, however, the separate disabilities placed on the children of the pro-
scribed are not distinguished (see VP 2.28, Plut. Sulla 31.4, Sall. hist. 1.55.6M, per. 89).
114 drpE1r?p xai
KcataMio'T1pt
rpoacrt tpocseX-tv
iKtXeuOEv atoIu xx Xyr , 6 t 8' E
ytv6geva gi noXvnpaygoveIv
(Plut. Sulla 30.3; cf. Cassius Dio fr. 109.4).
to further his efforts to have Antony declared a hostis. For, as Cicero hastened
to point out, supplicationes had only been declared for victories over hostes.
Civile bellum consul Sulla gessit, legionibus in urbem adductis quos voluit
expulit, quos potuit occidit: supplicationis mentio nulla. grave bellum
Octavianum insecutum est: supplicatio nulla victori. Cinnae victoriam
imperator ultus est Sulla: nulla supplicatio decreta a senatu. ad te ipsum,
P. Servili, num misit ullas collega [sc. C. Caesar as cos. 48] litteras de illa
calamatiosissima pugna Pharsalia? num te de supplicatione voluit referre?
profecto noluit. at misit postea de Alexandria, de Pharnace: Pharsaliae
vero pugnae ne triumphum quidem egit. (Phil. 14.23)
Cicero points out that no supplicatio was granted when as consul Sulla returned
with his army in 88 to overturn P. Sulpicius Rufus's laws aimed against him.
Neither was a supplicatio voted when Sulla's enemies returned to Rome after
he left for the East (Cicero refrains from mentioning directly who this victor
was, but the reference to Cinnae victoria in the next sentence shows whom he
means). Again as imperator Sulla was voted no supplicatio when he avenged
Cinna's victory. This can only refer to his obliteration of his opponents' armies
in 82, including the victory at the Porta Collina. This conclusion is made clear
by the implication of the next section: while Caesar was voted a supplicatio for
his victories in Egypt and Asia against foreigners, he did not even include the
victory at Pharsalus in his triumph. If Sulla had received any kind of official
recognition for his defeat of Telesinus and the Samnites as opposed to the
Roman officials whom they were aiding, then Cicero could not have failed to
remark upon this. It would have greatly reinforced his argument if he could
have said, "Sulla received no recognition for his defeat of Marius and Carbo,
but did receive a supplicatio for his victory over Telesinus and the Samnites."
As it is, we know quite directly that Sulla celebrated a triumph over Mithri-
dates."5 The evidence from Cicero demonstrates that he received no official
recognition for the victory at the Porta Collina. If Sulla had actually allowed
himself to be proclaimed imperator in connection with that victory, this would
necessarily imply a claim to a triumph, but in fact he did not even receive
-
and
therefore, under the circumstances, request
-
a supplicatio.
Is it possible that this acclamation was an informal one on the battlefield?
Valerius Maximus tells us (2.8.7) that however beneficial a general's services
may have been to the commonwealth, he was never hailed imperator in connec-
tion with a civil war. He cites the example of C. Antonius, yet Dio gives him the
title.'16 That there were real qualms about such an acclamation is shown by
Caesar's comments about Pompey's victory at Dyrrachium.
115 MRR 2.74.
116 Dio 37.40.2 (Obsequens 61 refers to fasces laureati, which perhaps suggests the same
thing, though the reference may simply be metaphorical). Sulla famously hailed the
young Pompey as imperator (Plut. Pomp. 8.3, Crass. 6.5), but however we take the
anecdote, it does not reflect normal Roman practice.
Pompeius eo proelio imperator est appellatus atque ita se postea salutari
passus, sed neque in litteris praescribere est solitus neque in fascibus
insignia laureae praetulit. (BC 3.71.3)
While one may have doubts about Caesar's tendentious presentation of the
facts, there can be no doubt that he expected his contemporary readers to under-
stand that an acclamation in connection with civil strife was not an honorable
distinction.
Thus while Sulla's victorious troops may well have been carried away like
Pompey' s in the elation of success, RRC #359 is clearly the result of a rationally
carried out policy of self-promotion on Sulla's part. It could only have marked
a diminution of his victory if he accepted an acclamation as imperator but was
denied a triumph. That he should have allowed himself to be proclaimed
imperator and boasted of this on a coin without then asking for a triumph is
incredible. And that the senate should have denied anything to the man who
deliberately killed literally thousands of his enemies within the hearing of the
senate, not to mention humiliating him by refusing a request for a triumph - this
too is beyond belief. The necessary conclusion is obvious. The second acclama-
tion as imperator did not take place at the Porta Collina. It took place at
Chaeronea, and the earlier acclamation formed part of his success as proconsul
in Cilicia.
4) The Dating of the RRC #359
Martin uses numismatic evidence to buttress his argument that Sulla received
his second imperatorial acclamation after the battle outside the Porta Collina.
Two emissions of coins refer to Sulla's imperatorial title. One is RRC #367,
minted by L. Manlius (Torquatus) pro q(uaestore)." 17 It portrays a triumphal
chariot on the reverse and bears the legend L. SVLLA IMP(erator). The other is
RRC #359, which bears the legend IMPER(ator) ITERV(m). In an article about
the coinage of Sulla published in 1964, Crawford took the "natural and logical
order" to be that RRC #367 came first because of its failure to mark the
iteration.
1
18 He indicated on the basis of hoard evidence that RRC #367 could be
dated to as early as mid-82 and uncertainly suggests that Sulla's second imper-
atorial acclamation, referred to on RRC #359, could indicate that the coin was
minted after the battle of the Porta Collina. l 19 In his major work on Republican
coinage published in 1974, Crawford reversed this "natural and logical order"
on the basis of hoard evidence.'20 Martin shows convincingly that it is impossi-
117 The illustrations in RRC seem to have PROQ. In Martin's plate 1, which appears to
represent Crawford's #367/3 (a coin not illustrated in RRC), there is no doubt but that the
coin correctly has an interpunct between the 0 and the Q.
18 M. Crawford, "The Coinage of the Age of Sulla," NC (1964) 141-55 at 149 n. 1.
1 19 Crawford (n. 1 18) 151.
120 RRC 80.
Sulla and the Monuments: Studies in his Public Persona
199
ble to use the wear on coins later buried in hoards as the basis on which to
distinguish issues emitted so close together in time.121 Hence Crawford's later
revision is dubious.
This does not, however, mean that one must revert to the "natural and
logical order" of the legends as a self-evident proposition. It is simply assumed
out of hand that #367 must precede #359 because it fails to mention the
iteration. But as we have seen, this is the first mention ever of an iteration of
acclamation, and such iteration is not an obligatory aspect of the title. One
might compare ILLRP 351, an inscription from Suessa: L. Cornelio Sullae
Felici imperatori publice. This shows that there was no need to remark upon the
iteration, which in fact is attested for Sulla nowhere but on RRC #359.122
Accordingly, there is no inherent need to mark it on #367. In fact, the coin's
message is perfectly clear without it. Sulla is the celebrator of a triumph as an
imperator.123 From an aesthetic point of view, it is hard to see how the word
iterum could have been crammed into the already tightly packed legend, and in
any case it was not necessary to do so. The coin draws attention to the triumph
and simply does not address the issue of earlier triumphs. RRC #359, on the
other hand, is very much a coin about Sulla's own career, and the two coin types
tell us nothing of the relative order of the issues. The interpretation of RRC
#359 has sparked a great deal of controversy, much of it bedeviled by the
earlier, erroneous dating of the coin. The coin type can only be interpreted
against the backdrop of this controversy.
Ultimately, the major dispute surrounding coin RRC #359 concerns its
interpretation within the context of the development of Roman Republican
coinage. Before discussing this directly, it would be useful to review the coin
type itself. The coin has on its obverse a diademed head of Venus, one of Sulla' s
121 Martin (n. 52) 32-34.
122 In this connection one could cite the dedication made by the Agrigentines to Pompey:
[Cn.J
Pompeio Magno
[ilmperatori [Iltalicei qui Agrigenti negotfanturl (ILLRP 380).
Here there is no reference to this being the third acclamation. (A dedication by Sicilians
may suggest a connection with Pompey's "liberation" of that island from the "Marians" in
81. However, the Agrigentines would have benefited from the suppression of the pirates
in 68, and Degrassi notes that if it is assumed that the inscription was made after the first
triumph, one has to suspect that since the stone was discovered near Pompey's theater, it
was reused in Pompey's later constructions, an unlikely proposition.) Also lLLRP 382:
[Cn. Plompeio Cn.[f Maigno imp(eratori) cos ter
[paltrono
publice. The third consul-
ship places this inscription in 52 at the earliest, many years after his third acclamation as
imperator ought to have expired following his triumph in 61 (see n. 58). Pompey himself
dedicated the temple of Minerva simply as Cn. Pompeius Magnus imperator (Pliny NH
7.97).
123 There is no way to tell from the coin type or legend whether the coin is prospective or
commemorative, that is, whether it proclaims the expectation that Sulla will triumph or
celebrates this as something that has already occurred.
"guardian" divinities.'24 To her right is a small figure of Cupid holding a palm
leaf, and below is the legend L. SVLLA. On the reverse, the central design
consists of a jug and a lituus, the symbols of the augurate. On each side of these
is a trophy. Above is the word IMPER(ator) and below ITERV(m). The broader
area of disagreement about the coin revolves around a thesis of A. Alfbldi, who
argued that "personal" types reflecting the priesthoods held by the moneyers
themselves do not arise until about the first consulship of Pompey and Crassus
in 70.125 Accordingly, if RRC #359 is taken to be personal, it is unusually early.
The direct issue is the interpretation of the augural symbols on the reverse.
Appian (BC 1.361) informs us that in 84 Sulla complained to a delegation
from the senate that he had been deprived of a priesthood. B. Frier argued that
the priesthood of which Sulla had been stripped before 84 was the augurate and
that coin RRC #359 was a claim that this act was invalid and the augurate still
Sulla's.'26 Badian rejected this equation of the priesthood mentioned in Appian
with the augurate, and demonstrated that the fact that L. Cornelius Scipio
Asiagenus is attested as becoming an augur in 87 precludes Sulla's having
belonged to that college previously.'27Asiagenus was consul in 83 and opposed
Sulla. After defeat, he fled to Massilia. He was prominent in the first proscrip-
tion list, and the date of his death is not known. Accordingly, Badian argued
that Asiagenus was removed from his position as augur, which was then given
to Sulla. This could only have happened after the battle of the Porta Collina.
Since Badian accepted the dating of the coin to 83 or even early 84, he argued
that the device portraying the symbols of the augurate must refer to those of an
ancestor. Thus the coin type would not violate the thesis of Alfoldi.
It is possible to strengthen Badian's argument about the removal of Asiage-
nus from his augurate. Keaveney thought that Sulla's attitude toward him was
124 For a recent treatment of Sulla's relationship to the gods, see A. Keaveney, "Sulla and the
Gods," Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (Collection Latomus 181 [1983])
44-79 (60-64 for Venus).
125 A. Alfoldi, "The Main Aspects of Political Propaganda on the Coinage of the Roman
Republic," in Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (1956) 63-95 at
75.
126 B. Frier, "Augural Symbolism in Sulla's Invasion of 83,"ANSMN 13 (1967) 111-18; also
"Sulla's Priesthood," Arethusa 2 (1969) 187-199.
127 E. Badian, "Sulla's Augurate," Arethusa 1 (1968) 26-46; also "A Reply," Arethusa 2
(1969) 199-201. ILS 9338 shows that at the death of M. Aemilius Scaurus in 87 he was
succeeded in an unspecified priesthood by L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus. Since there
was a provision that two members of the same gens could not be members of the same
priesthood (Dio 39.17.2), this should mean that in 84 Sulla could not have belonged to
this priesthood if Asiagenus was also an augur. Asconius 21 C indicates that Scaurus had
been augur. This evidence was disputed on the basis of another passage in Suetonius, but
A. Keaveney, "Sulla Augur," AJAH 7 (1982) 150-71 at 152-53 has shown that Suetonius
refers to a second incident and does not contradict Asconius.
one of magnanimity.'28 He argued that Sulla was grateful for Asiagenus's
having been willing to bargain with him in 83. In fact, Asiagenus was guilty of
betraying whatever deal he had made with Sulla, and the latter repaid him with
all the vindictiveness one would expect of him. Sulla's
army met Asiagenus's
between Teanum Sidicinum and Cales in 83. The two leaders met in parley, and
while they were discussing terms, Sulla undermined the loyalty of Asiagenus's
army, which went over to Sulla (Livy per. 85, Cic. Phil. 12.27, 13.2). Sulla then
dismissed Asiagenus unharmed. We know nothing of the terms of this dismiss-
al, but certainly Asiagenus must at the very least have agreed to oppose Sulla no
further. In fact, he did exactly the opposite (Diodorus 38/9.16). He moved north
with another army to oppose the young Cn. Pompey (Plut. Pomp. 7.3). There he
met the same misfortune, being abandoned a second time by his troops. After
this, his fate is not directly attested. Orosius tells us (5.21.3) that he appeared on
the first proscription list. Pseudo-Asconius tells us that he died either in exile in
Massilia or on the Stoechad islands.129 Cicero mentions a visit by P. Sestius to
his new father-in-law L. Scipio in Massilia. It used to be thought that these
passages together indicated that Asiagenus was allowed to withdraw to Massil-
ia, and was left alone there despite his being proscribed. This construct should
have drawn immediate attention to itself. Everything we know about the Sullan
proscriptions indicates the relentless and merciless hunting down of those
listed. That a prominent opponent of Sulla should emerge unharmed once
proscribed is a troubling interpretation. In fact, Badian completely undermined
it by demonstrating that the passage about Sestius refers not to the consul of 83
but to his son.
130
Once this is recognized, the hypothesis of the peaceful exile of
Asiagenus collapses, and other evidence supports this conclusion.
When Velleius Paterculus relates Sulla's dismissal of Asiagenus in 83, he
mentions the curious fact that Sulla was lenient while waging war but cruel in
victory:
nam et consulem [sc. Asiagenum] ut praediximus et multos alios, potitus
eorum, dimisit incolumes, credo ut in eodem homine duplicis ac diversissi-
mi animi conspiceretur exemplum. (2.25.3)
This comment makes little sense if it turned out that Sulla showed uncharacter-
istic forbearance in not having Asiagenus killed despite the fact that he had
been proscribed. The natural interpretation would be that Sulla did behave
128 Keaveney (n. 127) 153.
129 Postea in exilio Massiliensi aut aput Stoecadas insulas supremum diem functus est. The
uncertainty in Pseudo-Asconius's source may indicate that Asiagenus fled from Massilia
to the nearby Stoecad islands (the modern Iles d'Hy&res off Toulon) in order to hide from
the proscription, just as his colleague as consul, C. Norbanus, fled (vainly) to Rhodes
(App. BC 1.422).
130 Badian (n. 127) 44 n. 52.
toward him with cruelty after his victory. This interpretation is confirmed by a
reference in Cicero to Sulla's treatment of Asiagenus. In March 49, after
Pompey had fled from Brundisium to Greece and Caesar had seized control of
Italy, Cicero remained in Italy and deliberated despondently about his course of
action. In a letter to Atticus (8.3.6), he compared his own position to that of
various consulars in the 80s. In another letter he gloomily concluded with
similar ruminations:
nihil expedio nisi ut aut ab hoc [sc.
Caesare] tamquam Q. Scaevola aut ab
illo [sc.
Pompeio]
tamquam L. Scipio (Att. 9.15.2).
Q. Scaevola the pontifex had decided to remain in Rome and was killed in 82 by
Damasippus.131 The first clause in Cicero's letter, then, must refer to the
possibility of his being killed by Caesar at the time that Pompey returned from
the east like Sulla redivivus.'32 What then of the second half of the clause? If
Sulla had let Asiagenus escape the proscription, the second comparison is very
weak. Furthermore, it is hard to see what single verb could be supplied to suit
both clauses. 133 If, on the other hand, Sulla caused Asiagenus's death, then both
clauses are truly parallel, as the contrast would suggest. A verb meaning "kill"
can be readily supplied, and its suppression readily understood. So far from
Asiagenus being an unusual example of mercy on Sulla's part, he is simply
another example of his vindictiveness (though in this case not entirely unwar-
ranted).'34 The proscription list did not appear immediately after the victory,
but there is no reason to believe that Sulla did not bear Scipio a deep feeling of
ill-will for his breaking of the agreement reached with Sulla, and would have
been deterred from having him removed from his augurate promptly.
131 MRR 2.73.
132 Cicero was very aware of the fact that Pompey was trying to emulate Sulla in moving east
to collect his forces before returning to Italy, coining the mordent verb sullaturio (Att.
9.10.6) to convey his interpretation of Pompey's intentions.
133 One could, of course, supply a verb of relatively neutral signification like adficiar, but in
that case there would be little but formal parallelism and the reason for the ellipsis is hard
to see.
134 Recognition of the importance in Sulla's mind of Asiagenus's betrayal of their agreement
has very important implications for the assessment of Sulla's intentions. While there can
be no doubt that Sulla had every intention of fighting his way back to Rome from Greece,
the manner of his victory was by no means a foregone conclusion. If he had always
intended to slaughter his opponents, his release of Asiagenus makes no sense. Even if he
had felt obliged to conceal his bloodthirsty plans until his victory was total, he could still
have retained Asiagenus in custody until he was in a position to kill him at leisure. The
facts that he released Asiagenus and that he claimed after the victory at the Porta Collina
that he would attack all those who served under his enemies after the day that Asiagenus
broke their agreement (App. BC 1.441 ) strongly indicate that Sulla was embittered by that
betrayal and only at that stage resolved to wreak such sanguinary vengeance on his
opponents.
While Badian's demonstration that Sulla had not been augur before his
victory in 82 is completely convincing, the attempt to explain the augural
symbols is not. They appear in association with Sulla on the coins of his
descendants Faustus Cornelius Sulla and Q. Pompeius Rufus.'35 While it is of
course possible that by coincidence Sulla referred to an ancestor's having been
augur and later assumed the position of Asiagenus in that college, it is a striking
coincidence. Furthermore, the rest of the coin type is very much associated with
Sulla directly. Venus was of course one of his "patron" deities.136 The obverse
legend directly names Sulla and the reverse one refers directly to his imperator-
ial acclamation. Given the rest of the coin's design, it is hard to avoid the
feeling that all the devices must refer to Sulla directly. Crawford felt this, and
while granting the possibility of a reference to an ancestor, tried to provide a
more direct connection by arguing that the symbols refer to the necessary
presence of the augurs at the passage of the lex curiata de imperio. Thus, the
coin asserts Sulla's claim that his imperium was still valid despite his having
been declared a hostis in 87.137 This argument can only be described as an act of
desperation. While one may debate the extent to which coin devices could be
correctly interpreted by the general public, I do not believe that any contempo-
rary who examined the coin could have interpreted the reverse in that way.'38
From a practical point of view, if such had been the intended message, it surely
could have been made in a clearer way simply by giving Sulla his civil title of
proconsul, which would necessarily imply a rejection of any revocation that had
in the meanwhile been passed in Rome. In any case, his title of imperator
(iterum) necessarily means imperator populi Romani and inherently denies the
abrogation of his imperium.
But all of these problems of interpretation naturally follow from the premise
that the coin was issued before the battle of the Porta Collina. Once it is
recognized, as Martin has so usefully demonstrated, that there is no numismatic
evidence to indicate the relative chronology of RRC #359 and RRC #367, then
in terms of the interpretation of RRC #359 there is no longer any difficulty in
accepting Badian's thesis about the time of Sulla's admission to the augurate.
The coin must have been designed after November 1, 82, and celebrates inter
alia Sulla's admission to that prestigious college of priests.139
135 See p. 208-209.
136 Plutarch Sulla 19.5 (quoted p. 9) informs us that he dedicated trophies to her in Greece,
and of course his new name Felix was rendered in Greek as Enaipo6&8ro; (App. BC
1.453-55, which also attests his gifts to her). Balsdon (n. 46) 5-9 is far too skeptical in
attempting to downplay Sulla's associations with her.
137 RRC 374.
138 Apart from any other considerations, why would anyone associate the augurs with the
passage of that law in particular?
139 Badian (1968) (n. 127) 39-40 argued that Sulla had belonged to the pontificate. Since
there is no allusion to any priesthood but the augurate on the coins of his descendants (see
Can we be more specific? As we have seen above, we are not informed
about the date of Asiagenus's death, but it is perfectly possible that he was
promptly stricken from the rolls of augurs.140 This could have followed in short
order after Sulla's victory. The augurs would no doubt have been eager to
demonstrate their loyalty to the victor. It is worth noting that both RRC #359
and RRC #368 include aurei, the first emission of gold since 209. Accordingly,
these issues included coins of high value. What might have been the purpose of
issuing such coin? It has been argued that the coin was used in preparation for
the campaigns in Italy. But to what end? The initial supplies must have been
collected in Greece before the invasion.141 Once it was under way, large sums
would have been needed to keep Sulla's armies supplied.142 Therefore some
coins must have been issued in 83 and 82 in Italy. If RRC #359 was issued after
November 1, 82, then it is safest to assume that RRC #367 was issued before
that date.
The design of #367 perhaps supports such a dating. The obverse has a
helmeted head of Roma and the legend L. MANI(us) PRO Q.; the reverse
portrays a triumphator crowned by a victory as he rides in triumph in a quadriga
and has the legend L. SVLLA IMP(erator). The helmeted head of Roma had
been an extremely popular device from the very beginning of Roman coinage,
but had dropped out of popularity since 100.143 Its reemergence may have been
part of an attempt to make the invader's coinage unremarkable by giving it the
non-threatening appearance of the coinage of an earlier period.144 Certainly, the
p. 208-209), it is better to assume that the priesthood about which Sulla complained in 84
was a minor one.
140 See p. 200-202 for the fate of Asiagenus; see Badian (1968) (n. 127) 38 for the possibility
of his having been removed from the priesthood before his death.
141 Whether these preparations are related to the disputed
v6pogica
Ao'KOi)XXCtov (see n.
153) is not relevant for present purposes.
142 Badian (1968) (n. 127) 42 n. 10 argued that it was easier to transport precious metal in the
form of ingots to be minted in Italy. Frier (1969) (n. 126) 193 n. 3 contested this, but
surely Badian's basic point is correct. If an ingot was dropped, the worst it could suffer
was a dent; if a bag or box of coins was dropped, it could break open, scattering coins
everywhere. Badian also argued that the troops would not have been paid until after the
victory. As general principle it is probably true that troops did not need much money in
their pockets on a regular basis, but during a civil war one would probably want the troops
contented (cf. Sallusts's comment [BC 1 1.5-61 on Sulla's having bought the loyalty of the
troops by allowing them to plunder Asia).
143 As far as I can tell, RRC#337/3 and RRC#337/4 are the only issues between 100 and 82
to bear this image.
144 Alfoldi (n. 125) 66 notes as one characteristic of the first-century moneyers' appropriation of
coin types as advertisements of their ancestors and themselves the fact that "the head of Roma
disappears suddenly from the obverses, to cede her place to the tutelary deities of the
aristocracy and other abstractions ..." Thus the choice of Roma for the obverse would be very
much a part of an effort to make the coin appear to belong to the earlier series.
ascription of the coin to a proquaestor indicated no unconstitutional claims on
the part of Sulla. 145 There was nothing inherently threatening about the claim to
a triumph on the reverse. Sulla had, after all, defeated Mithridates and deserved
one on that account.146 There was thus nothing about his coin type to worry
Sulla's opponents or, perhaps more importantly, those who did not know what
stance to take in the struggle. RRC #367 thus fits perfectly into the period before
Sulla's victory in Italy.
What then of RRC #359? The reference to Sulla's augurate places it in the
period after his victory at the Porta Collina. The most obvious use at this time
for coins, including those of a high denomination, is for the division of plunder
among Sulla's supporters. The reason for the very personal coin type is then
clear: those who were to receive the issue were his own supporters and the coin
type celebrated his victory in which they were sharing. In any case, we have
already seen that the inscription on the base of Sulla's statue in the forum
conveyed his absolute, untrammeled power.'47 This coin type, then, was like-
wise intended to convey the same message as his speech in the senate the day
after the battle, though in a more muted way. Sulla was the favorite of Venus, he
either had celebrated his second triumph or was about to do so, and he had
acquired the augurate of one of his opponents.'48 It would be useful to know
whether the coin marked the intention or fact of triumphing, but this cannot be
145 Crawford gives "L. SVLLA IMPE, L. MANLI PROQ" as the heading for this issue,
indicating that he takes the reverse legend as indicating that Sulla was associated with the
issue. It is true that one finds during the civil war between Pompey and Caesar the name
of Pompey on the reverse of coins minted by proquaestors whose names appear on the
obverse (RRC #446, 447). There is, however, no earlier evidence for this double authori-
ty, and in the context of RRC #367 it is hard to see how the reverse legend could not be
taken as a description of the triumphator portrayed there. In regard to the ascription of
legends to moneyers, one might note RRC #433, two coin types which portray L. lunius
Brutus cos. 509 and bear the legend BRVTVS. Crawford gives this as the name of
moneyer in the heading and claims that the legend "is in each case both descriptive of the
type and indicative of the moneyer's name." The word "indicative" obscures the issue.
Surely BRVTVS can directly refer only to the person portrayed, and while it may allude
to the name of the moneyer, it cannot directly represent it at the same time as it names the
person portrayed on the coin. Compare RRC #291, which bears a legend relat-ing only to
the coin type, though it may well suggest the name of the moneyer (see n. 70).
146 The fact that in order to wage war against his fellow citizens he preferred to make a deal
with the murderer of thousands of Roman citizens rather than to win a total victory over
him is beside the point.
147 Seep. 183.
148 For the commemoration of the new priesthood, compare RRC #456. This coin has an
obverse device of an axe and knife, the symbols of the pontificate, with the legend
CAESAR DICT., and an obverse type of a jug and lituus, the symbols of the augurate,
with the legend ITER(um). The coin is thus minted in 47, and celebrates Caesar's recent
acquisition of the position of augur in addition to the position as pontifex maximus that he
held since 63 (for the acquisition, see Dio 42.51.4).
definitely determined on the evidence of the coin. 149 Thus, the coin type is very
much a celebration of Sulla' s personal victory. 150 Short of having the complete-
ly unprecedented portrayal of Sulla himself on the coins, one could hardly
conceive of a more "personal" coin type. Alfoldi's thesis thus has an exception.
And it is not difficult to see why it took more than a decade for anyone to
imitate him. At the time, Sulla was distinctly sui generis. No one had seized
power through the military force as he had, nor had anyone dominated Rome as
he had. The demise of the Republic was to come about through the ambitions of
those who wished to emulate Sulla.
IV. Later Commemoration of Sulla's Victory at the Porta Collina
We have seen already what a potent symbol the actual tpo6tatov represented in
Roman political life. Thus it could be represented on later works of art as a
symbol for victory, though here it is not always easy to be sure whether the
portrayal of such a monument is the representation of an actual monument or is
only a symbol. On the one hand, a trophy can directly represent a specific
victory on the battlefield, representing a physical monument such as Sulla's
monument on the plain at Chaeronea. On the other, such a portrayal can also
symbolize an imperatorial acclamation received after a victory in battle. Simi-
larly, the trophy can symbolize the successful conclusion of an entire war. This
symbolism corresponds to monuments such as Marius's two trophies in Rome
or Pompey's trophy in the Pyrenees.151 If a war is ended in a single battle, the
149 We know that Sulla's triumph was celebrated on the 28th and 29th of January of 81 (Act.
Tr.). If the coins were issued after the triumph, he would no longer technically be the
imperator iterum, but there is no reason why he could not have been referring to his
previous position. Note the similar ambiguity in the signification of the triumph referred
to on the reverse of RRC #369 (see n. 123). Sulla received the title dictator directly after
news reached Rome of the death of both consuls, Norbanus apparently dying in late 82
(see MRR 2.73 n. 1) and one might have expected this title to be recorded along with his
new name Felix. This is reasonably strong evidence that the coin was designed directly
after the victory before the new titles were bestowed, but it is always possible that the
coin looks back retroactively to the justification for Sulla's new title without actually
mentioning it.
150 Keaveney (n. 127) 157-58 interprets coin RRC #367 in light of Crawford's notion (see n.
137) that the augural symbols are meant to refute the notion that Sulla's imperium had
been legitimately revoked. In this view, the coin type was propaganda meant to influence
the forces supporting the anti-Sullan government. This argument is based on the old
dating of the coin (see p. 155 where he takes it as "universally agreed" that coin RRC#367
was issued "before the war ended"). Once the correct dating is understood, the signifi-
cance of the coin is rather different. As I have argued, coin RRC #359 serves the function
ascribed by Keaveney to RRC #367.
151 For Pompey's monument, see n. 58.
symbolism is clear: all three kinds can come into play at once.'52 If, however,
one has a situation like that of Sulla's or Pompey's career, the symbolism of
trophies is not always self-evident.
As already noted, coin RRC #357 bears two trophies on its obverse. In
conjunction with the legend IMPER(ator) ITERV(m), their direct signification
is clear. They represent the two battles at which Sulla was hailed imperator: the
first, unknown battle in Cilicia and the later victory at Chaeronea. Even here,
however, they can represent the third kind of symbolism, the successful com-
pletion of the wars during which the acclamations took place. Thus the trophies
indicate obliquely Sulla's restoration of Ariobarzanes to his throne and his
defeat of Mithridates. The coins thus tacitly ignore Sulla's military conquest of
Italy, just as he received neither a triumph nor even a supplicatio for this
achievement.
Two trophies likewise appear on coins of Athens issued by that town under
Sulla's authority after his capture of it in 86.153 Conceivably these coins were
minted after the Peace of Dardanus and like #357 commemorate his successful
completion of a second war. However, in the immediate context of coins minted
among Rome's dubious Achaean allies, the minor victory in Cilicia some years
before was perhaps a matter of little consequence. 154 It seems much more likely
that the two trophies have a significance relating to the immediate situation of
the Mithridatic war and symbolize the two Roman victories, at Chaeronea and
at Orchomenos, over the forces of Mithridates to whom the Greeks had gone
over after rebelling against the Romans. This message is clear. For Rome's
loyal allies it represents the ultimate vindication of Roman power in the east
and the recompense of those who suffered in resisting Mithridates. For the
disloyal it represents the futility of resistance and the inevitable punishment of
those who revolt.
These two-trophy symbols are reasonably straightforward. The case is by
no means as clear with the three trophies later associated with Sulla. Dio
mentions (43.18.3) that Pompey's signet ring, like Sulla's, had three trophies on
it.155 A coin of Sulla's son Faustus may refer to this. The coin (RRC#426/3) has
152 Note, for instance, that the reverse design of RRC #415, a coin minted by L. Aemilius
Lepidus, refers to his putative ancestor L. Aemilius Paullus. It portrays a central trophy
with Paullus to the right, the captives the defeated king Perseus and his children to the
left, and has above the word TER. Clearly the illusion was to a third victory at the battle of
Pydna and (apparently) a third imperatorial acclamation. The iconography does not make
clear whether victory in battle or in war is signified.
153 The coins issued during Sulla's proconsulship are treated by M. Thompson, The New
Style Silver Coinage of Athens (1961) 425-39 (##1341-45 are the 'trophy' coins). The
relationship of this emission to the v6.taa AouKo-AkEtov of Plut. Luc. 2.2 is not an
issue to be gone into here.
154 Here I use "Achaea" in the broader sense of Roman territory in mainland Greece.
155 Plutarch asserts three times that Sulla always used a signet ring portraying the handing
Venus on the obverse, and on the reverse has three trophies with ajug to the left,
a lituus to the right and the anagram of FAVSTVS below. Crawford dismisses
the evidence of Dio as a mistake and takes the coin as referring to Cn. Pompey
ter imperator. He follows Mommsen in thinking that Dio is inaccurate in the
number of trophies on Sulla's ring: that ring resembled Pompey's in portraying
trophies, but had only two.156 This number seems superficially to fit in with
other evidence, namely the Athenian drachmas minted for Sulla in the 80s and
coin RRC #367. However, while he may have chosen not to celebrate the
victory at the Porta Collina in an official manner, there could be no doubt that
he won another great victory there and brought to an end another war.157 It
would be perfectly reasonable for him to commemorate this on a new signet
ring. It is conceivable that the three trophies symbolized the battles of Chaero-
nea, Orchomenos and the Porta Collina. However, it seems more likely that
trophies represent victory in the wars in Cilicia, Achaia and Italy.'58
To return to the coins minted by Faustus, it would seem that one type does
allude to Pompey.159 Crawford thus takes the symbols of the augurate as
references to Pompey, who was an augur. But two other coins of Faustus (#426/
1 and 2) clearly commemorate Sulla, the first portraying on its reverse the
famous surrender of Jugurtha by Bocchus to Sulla. In addition, Sulla's grand-
over to him of Jugurtha by Bocchus (Mar. 10.5-6, Sulla 3.4, Mor. 558). Pliny the Elder
agrees in saying that he always used this ring (NH 37.8; Valerius Maximus 8.14.4 alludes
merely to the use of this ring). The agreement of Plutarch and Pliny shows that both must
ultimately depend upon a source stating that Sulla always used such a ring. The coins
discussed below in the text suggests that he changed his ring only in the last few years of
his life, a fact presumably not noted by Plutarch's and Pliny's source.
156 Mommsen (n. 103) 629 n. 473.
157 In this regard, one might compare Cicero's state that tantum animi habuit ad audaciam ut
dicere in contione non dubitaret, bona civium Romanorum cum venderet, se praedam
suam vendere (Verr. 2.3.81). While it is possible that after he became fully aware of his
own monarchical power after the battle of the Porta Collina he developed a smug sense of
his own superiority (compare the similar development in Caesar's character between 49
and 44), it is probably more the case that he refrained from any unprecedented official
celebration of his defeat of fellow citizens while being perfectly willing to do so in a
private vein.
158 In considering this question, it may be worth noting that Plutarch ascribes Sulla's
dedication of his victory monuments to Mars, Venus and Victory as being motivated by
his having successfully concluded the war no more through his own prowess and strength
than through the favor of the gods (o &?
2X(?a;
X?yet TEcaapa;
Kcai cKa tiTir4cat
TCiv aiTOi5 axpaTtmCov, Ella Kai tO-kOv 8u6o po6;
Tuv earEpav napayevkaala.
ibo Qai
Toi; Tponraiot; E1ctypaWev
'ApT Kai NiKflv cal
'AOpo5itMv, *
o-6X ijrtov
tvivXiqi
KatopOxc3ac; fi 61tv6nyrx Ka't 8cuivac.te rov o'Xe4ov (Sulla 19.8-91). While this explana-
tion may be Plutarch's interpretation, it is significant that it directly follows out of Sulla's
own statement that he had lost only fourteen troops and later found two of these, and
hence may reflect some formulation of Sulla himself.
159 RRC#426/4; see Crawford's discussion, RRCp. 450.
son Q. Pompeius Rufus clearly associates the augurate with Sulla. His RRC #
434/2 portrays a curule chair with a lituus to the left and a victory wreath to the
right and has the legend SVLLA COS. Since Rufus directly associated the
augurate with Sulla and since Faustus did commemorate his father, it would
appear to be capricious to dismiss the direct evidence of Dio for no good reason.
It would be perfectly understandable that in his old age after his literally
triumphant return to Rome Sulla would have changed his signet ring. The older
contentious design emphasized his claims over those of his old commander
Marius. However much he may have felt that he was ultimately responsible for
ending the war with Jugurtha, there could be little doubt that Marius was in fact
technically in command and that the deeds of all of his lieutenants, including
Sulla, redounded to Marius's glory. By narrowly referring to his dispute with
Marius about ending the Jugurthine war, the old ring implied that he could
acquire glory only through taking it from his old commander. Furthermore,
given the famous Roman conception that a senior magistrate was in parentis
loco to his quaestor (e.g., Cic. div. in Caec. 61), such a situation must have been
to some extent uncomfortable for Sulla, however much he may have disowned
his new "father." The design of the new signet ring symbolized the victories
that Sulla had indisputably won in his own right. For good or ill, no one could
dispute that the victories in Cilicia, Achaia and Italy belonged to Sulla and to no
one else.
Now we have seen the many ways in which physical monuments served to
create Sulla's public persona. In his quest for the consulship, he did not simply
use Bocchus's ostensible gift to the Roman People as a means merely to assert
his own version of the end of the Jugurthine war but entered into a "monumen-
tal" war with Marius. The contention over his monument in 91 clearly repre-
sented a serious step in the deterioration in the relationship between the quaes-
tor and his old commander. After the further decline that took place as a result
of the bitter strife of the early 80s, Sulla trumped Marius by removing his
monuments in Rome from the sight of men if not the gods. He thereby provided
Marius's great nephew Caesar with a splendid opportunity to make a very
physical manifestation both of his allegiance to the memory of his kinsman and
of his opposition to the political heirs of Sulla by almost miraculously restoring
the monuments that Sulla had removed.
Next, we examined the new monument from Chaeronea. While this proves
not to have been a monument of Sulla, it does bear testimony to the minor claim
to immortality made by two Boeotians who had rendered signal assistance to
Sulla in his victory there and who were allowed to associate their own apto-ata
with Sulla's own monument on the battlefield. The erection of the latter monu-
ment served several purposes in Sulla's public persona. Naturally, it represent-
ed Sulla's decisive defeat of Mithridates's forces in that battle, and when it was
paired with the monument erected in commemoration of the later victory at
Oropus, the two trophies signified Sulla's defeat of Mithridates. In this signifi-
cation, the two trophies appear on the Sullan coinage at Athens. In another
sense, however, the single trophy at Chaeronea represents the victory which
resulted in his second acclamation as imperator, the earlier occasion having
occurred during his proconsulship in Cilicia in the 90s. This meaning is directly
conveyed on his coins with the legend IMPER(ator) ITERV(m). The acclama-
tion referred to on those coins has the less immediate signification of a second
war brought to a successful conclusion by the proconsul of Rome. On his
coinage Sulla restricted himself to referring to his two victories over Rome's
foreign enemies, making no overt allusion to the defeat of his personal inimici.
Even if the victory over them is implied by the symbols of the augurate he won
through the defeat of L. Scipio and by the commemoration of his victory in the
ludi Sullanae victoriae, such a defeat was not a fitting occasion for overt public
celebration, and he received neither imperatorial acclamation, supplicatio nor
triumph for his defeat even of the Samnite forces that had opposed him at the
Colline Gate, not to mention that of his Roman opponents. On his personal
signet ring, however, he could indulge a personal sense of satisfaction, and he
replaced the old ring that commemorated his version of the end of the war with
Jugurtha and implicitly made his own claim to fame as a derogation of and
derivation from that of Marius, substituting the image of three trophies symbol-
izing his victories over the Cilician opponents of Rome, Mithridates and his
own inimici. This was a fitting tribute to the man who strove untiringly for his
own glory and felt no qualms about publishing lists of his enemies in order to
see them wiped out pitilessly.
University of Alberta, Edmonton Christopher S. Mackay

Stuff About Sulla

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Stuff About Sulla

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Sulla and the Monuments: Studies in His Public Persona

Author(s): Christopher S. Mackay

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi