Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T23:21:27.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulla and Smyrna

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. G. Lewis
R. G. Lewis
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Discussion starts from Tac. Ann. 4.56, where in a.d. 26 ambassadors from Smyrna, with those of other communities in Asia, present their city's case for selection as the site of the province's cult of Tiberius, and plead a lengthy record of loyalty and past officia to Rome, dating back to the foundation at Smyrna of a temple to Urbs Roma in 195 B.C. amid the tensions with Antiochus III of Syria. Tacitus proceeds:

Type
Articles
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , May 1991 , pp. 126 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Noticed, to my knowledge, only by Cadoux, C. J., Ancient Smyrna, 147Google Scholar; 157, without drawing the conclusions set out below. On taking a Roman corpse into the city, there is no necessary inconsistency with Cic. Flacc. 75.

2 Justin 36.4.7 …extremo anni tempore; Florus 1.35; Strabo 14.1.38; Gell. NA 1.13.11; Val. Max. 3.2.12; Oros. 5.10; Eutrop. 4.20; Liv. Per. 59; Vell. 2.4.

3 Note that Tac. Ann. 4.55, somewhat disparagingly, has all the competing Asian cities, presumably Smyrna included, claiming past loyalty in the war against Aristonicus. But Smyrna could adduce Sulla's evidence in proof (and if even Sulla conceded the point, it must be true!).

4 Plut. Sull. 25.2 ττακτο γρ κστης µρας τῷ καταλτῃ τν ξνον διδναι τσσαρα τετρδραχµα κα παρχειν δεπνον αὐτῷ κα ϕίλοις, ὅσους ἂν θλῃ καλεν, ταξαρχον δ πεντήκοντα δραχµς λαµβνειν τς µρας, σθτα δ ἄλλην µν οἰκουρν, ἄλλην δ εἰς γορν προερχµενος. Cf. App. Mith. 61. There is no sign of any emergency or particular mention of Smyrna – yet the story in Tacitus would certainly have appealed to Plutarch, had he found it in Sulla's autobiography, which was known to him.

5 Rutilius had moved from his place of exile at Mytilene in 88 when Mithridates' forces overran the place, was made welcome in Smyrna and took local citizenship there (Cic. Rab. Post. 27; Dio Fr. 97.3). He next appears as Sulla's envoy to Fimbria at Thyateira in 85 (App. Mith. 60), but refused Sulla's offer of repatriation (Sen. Dial. 1.3.7; ben. 6.37.2; Ep. 24.3; Quintil. 11.1.12; Dio 38. Fr. 97.4; Val. Max. 6.4.4), which was doubtless meant to lend more respectability to Sulla's cause, but which Rutilius deemed illegal.

6 Apparently by expelling his garrison (Oros. 6.2.8), on the strength of which, together with non-participation in the massacre (unlike Ephesus, which also revolted, but had taken part), D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor 1.234; 2.1112 n. 7 believes that Smyrna was left free – which is likely enough, if he is also right that Cos was freed (ibid. 1112 n. 8; Riv. Fil. 66, 1938, 253; contra Lintott, A. W., Historia 25, 1976, 490 n. 7Google Scholar, who however is also convinced that Smyrna remained free – but largely because of her (supposed) gift of clothing to Sulla's army. Smyrna's surrender to Mithridates' forces is apparently attested by the coins found there (Magie, op. cit. 2.1103 n. 34; C. J. Cadoux, op. cit. 156), and perhaps by initial support for Mithridates from the Smyrnaeans Mynnio and Philotimus, if they were not exiles (App. Mith. 48). Participation in the massacre by Ephesus, Pergamum and Tralles: App. Mith. 23, who also adds Adramyttium, Caunus. Mytilene had also offended and lost her freedom; so too did Clazomenae and perhaps Phocaea (Magie, op. cit. 1.215; 2.1115 n. 14; Liv. Per. 89; Plut. Lucull. 4.2–3).

7 Lampsacus' freedom under Sulla's dispensations is inferred, a little riskily, by D. Magie, RRAM 2.1111 n. 5 from Cic. II Verr. 1.78–81 (contra Lintott, A. W., Historia 25, 1976, 490 n. 7)Google Scholar; Rome's tutelage of her (along with Smyrna) went back to the 190s B.C. (Liv. 33.38.3–7; 35.16.3–6; 17.7; 42.2; 37.35.2), and enrolment as an ally to 170 (Liv. 43.6.10). Punishment of the guilty at Athens: Plut. Sull. 14.4–5; App. Mith. 38; 59; Gran. Lie. 24F1; Paus. 1.20.5 & 7; nevertheless, Sulla's confirmation of her free status, persuaded by well-disposed senators: Plut. Sull. 14.5; Strabo 9.1.20; App. Mith. 39 (but cf. 38); Liv. Per. 81; Flor. 1.40.10; Veil. 2.23.3 (cf. Plut. Sull. 12.1); Memnon F 22.11J (an order of the Roman senate, presumably conflating Sulla's decision in 86 with an SC confirming it in 81/0 B.C.). Badian, E., AJAH 1, 1976, 105–28Google Scholar, esp. 115f. suspects with reason that the ultimate source was Sulla's autobiography, here mendacious in that his dispensation at Athens was not a restoration of a previous (oligarchic) constitution, but a newly devised and imposed one of his own. For the influence of senators, perhaps compare Rutilius at Smyrna, which had in the past harboured other Roman exiles of whom Sulla would have approved – Q. Caepio (cos. 106, despite his son's clash with Scaurus: Cic. Balb. 28); Q. Metellus Numidicus (Vir. Ill. 62.2; but Liv. Per. 69 (Rhodes); Val. Max. 4.1.13 (Asia)).

8 This view is aired, without firm commitment to it, by C. J. Cadoux. op. cit. 158; Keaveney, A., Sulla…, 233.Google Scholar

9 Cicero brackets Smyrna with Tralles and Pergamum, both of which had probably been deprived of free status by Sulla, but Cicero's point is not their common status, but that they are all centres of commerce for large numbers of Roman citizens who require Roman jurisdiction.

10 H. Peter, HRR i2 Sulla Fr. 17A; pp. 202; cclxxx.

11 Tac. Ann. 3.62. Clearly Magnesia on the Maeander, rewarded by Sulla for resistance to Mithridates, not Magnesia-by-Sipylos, despite Pausanias 1.20.5.

12 Sherk, R. K., Roman Documents of the Greek East, nos. 17–21Google Scholar (note textual improvements to No. 17 suggested by Crawford, M. H. and Reynolds, J. M. in GRBS 15, 1974, 289–93)Google Scholar; Sulla's letters preface nos. 18; 20. A. W. Lintott, art. cit. 490 n. 7 affirms without discussion (but rightly, on the present view) that Sulla's testimony would be a letter or SC, without however considering the possibility of his Memoirs.

13 Appian, Mith. 61, which allows inclusion of renewals as well as grants de novo. On Magnesia, cf. Strabo 13.3.35. Add Rhodes (ILS 8772); Chios (SIG 3 785); probably also Apollonis (Cic. Flacc. 71) and perhaps Termessus (Bruns, FIRA 7, 92–5); Alabanda (Willrich, H., Hermes 34, 1899, 305f.)Google Scholar; Lampsacus (Cic. II Verr. 1.78–81); Metropolis (App. Mith. 48); conceivably Colophon, Cos, Sardis, Hypaepa, Cnidus (Oros. 6.2.8; App. Mith. 48; Plut. Lucull. 3.3; Magie, RRAM 1.237; 2.1112 n. 8; 1115 n. 13). See further above, n. 6.