Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:08:14.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Tribunate of P. Sulpicius Rufus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. W. Lintott
A. W. Lintott
Affiliation:
King’s College, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 88 B.C. the dying embers of the Social War kindled an even more dangerous civil war. Violence with gangs was no longer the final solution in Roman political struggles, but war with a regular army took its place. The link between the two wars and the critical escalation of political conflict was created by the tribunate of P. Sulpicius Rufus. Most modern accounts differ little in describing the sequence of events in his tribunate, though they vary in the interpretation of his motives and policy. They agree because they accept the common basis to the narratives of Appian, Plutarch, and Velleius as true, even though they usually discard the Tendenz in these authors, through which Sulpicius is portrayed as an unscrupulous man who put his services at Marius’ disposal. It is the aim of this paper to propose that the wheat in these authors cannot be so easily separated from the chaff: that in fact the bias, which is most obvious in Plutarch’s Lives, and there can be largely ascribed to the influence of Sulla’s fjown memoirs, has not only distorted motives but misplaced and misrepresented facts. Important inconsistencies in Appian, when taken in conjunction with the little information we have outside these sources, suggest a different outline for Sulpicius’ tribunate—one which involves more uncertainties than the commonly accepted view, because it is obtained by rejecting the validity of more of our scanty source material, but which may enable us to judge more fairly not only Sulpicius and Marius but also Sulla himself.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , December 1971 , pp. 442 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1971

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

page 442 note 1 Examples of modern scholars who believe that Sulpicius’ tribunate was a plot by Marius against Sulla are Carcopino (Sulla, 30 ff. and Histoīre Romaine [Bloch–Carcopino], ii. 393 ff.Google Scholar) and Valgiglio (Silla e la crisi repubblicana, 6ff.). Last (CAII ix. 201 ff.Google Scholar), Badian, (Foreign Clientelae, 230 ff. and Historia, xviii [1969], 481 ff.Google Scholar), Meier, Ch.(Res Publica Amissa, 216 ff.Google Scholar),Münzer, (RE 2. iv. 843 ff.Google Scholar) and Gabba, (Appiani Bellum Civile Liber Primus, pp. 162 ff.Google Scholar) all credit Sulpicius with a policy of his own, to improve the lot of the newly enfranchised Italians.

page 442 note 2 These are cited by Plutarch in Sulla 4, 5, 6, 14 (twice), 16, 17, 19, 23, 27, 28, 37; and in Marius 25, 26, 35.

page 442 note 3 Badian (F.C. 234 n. 1) has suspected this statement on the ground that there is no Latin equivalent for the Greek word. It seems possible to me that Plutarch has mistranslated a phrase in a Latin source, e.g. ‘quos in consilium senatus vicem vocabat’. For Plutarch’s mistranslations of Latin see the Bude edition of Livy, vol. ii, pp. 143 ff.

page 443 note 1 See below, p. 444 n. 4.

page 443 note 2 See above, p. 442 n. 2

page 443 note 3 A similar sketch is found in Diodorus 37. 29. 1, and therefore this particular passage derives probably from Poseidonius, cited in Plut. Mar. 45, see p. 449 n. 5 below.

page 444 note 1 The Epitome of Livy 77 likewise states that Marius was the source of Sulpicius’ plans. It records three proposals of Sulpicius, including a bill about the return of exiles, but no chronological deductions can be made from the résumée.

page 444 note 2 Appian, (B.C. 1. 55. 242Google Scholar) is probably only stressing that Sulla had not yet gone East. For Sulla’s first visit to his camp see Veil. 2. 18. 4; Plut Sulla 8.

page 444 note 3 B.C. 1. 49. 214–15, referring to the lex Iulia. Velleius (2. 20. 2) refers to an original provision that they should be placed in eight tribes (whether new or previously existing, is not clear). Gabba, (App. B.C. 1, pp. 147 f.Google Scholar) and Sherwin-White, {Roman Citizenship, p. 133Google Scholar) believe that the lex Iulia was modified in this matter (by the lex Plautia Papiria—Gabba; by the lex Calpurnia— Sherwin-White), but it is doubtful whether we should attribute to later laws more than our direct evidence warrants.

page 444 note 4 ả03C1;γίαis used elsewhere to mean feriae, but we cannot be certain that this is what Appian means here nor that Plutarch’s ả03C0;ραξίαι(Plut. Sulla 8. 3) means iustitium. The latter was used for political obstruction at a time of violence in 57 (Cic. Red. Sen. 6); the former in 56 (Cic. Q.F. 2. 5. 2 = 4. 4). See my Violence in Republican Rome, 144 n. 2, 153. I am inclined now to think that Sulla declared feriae, not a iustitium, because this would have been a more effective form of obstruction. As Mommsen {Staatsr. i 3. 265) shrewdly pointed out, infringement of a iustitium did not automatically make the offender liable for a penalty (though no doubt he could be indicted for maiestas), nor did it invalidate any measure enacted. However, legislation during feriae, on days which had thus become non comitiales, would have breached the leges Aelia et Fufia and could probably be annulled by the senate on this ground (in my view a specific provision of the lex Caecilia Didia). See my Violence in Republican Rome, 132 ff.,esp. 140–1. References to views on these passages can be found in Gabba’s edition of Appian B.C. 1, pp. 163–4. The type of feriae envisaged are ‘imperativae … quas consules vel praetores pro arbitrio potestatis indicunt’ (Macr. Sat. 1. 16.6).

page 445 note 1 Münzer, , RE 2. iv. 847Google Scholar; Gabba, , App. B.C. 1, p. 165Google Scholar.

page 445 note 2 Histoire romaine, ii. 395.

page 446 note 1 The introduction of serving soldiers into Rome after a s.c.u. did not in fact occur until 52. However, M. Antonius had been ordered to hold troops in readiness outside Rome in 100 (Cic. Rab. Perd. 26). See my Violence in Republican Rome, 89 ff., 200.

page 446 note 2 Sulla told envoys who met him on the road to Rome that he was going to free Rome from the tyrants (App. B.C. 1. 57. 253). Similar claims had been made by those who used force against the Gracchi. Indeed Opimius had been urged to do this in 121 by the senatus consultum ultimum (Plut, . T.G. 19.3;Google ScholarCG. 14. 3Google Scholar).

page 446 note 3 Cic. Phil. 11. 11; cf. Brut. 305; Asc. 25 C; and see Astin, , The Lex Annalis before Sulla (Collection Latomus, xxxii [1958]), pp. 20 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 446 note 4 Quint. 6. 3. 75

page 446 note 5 F.C. 228℃31, cf. Historia, xviii(1969), 481–2Google Scholar; ILS 8888.

page 446 note 6 CIL i 2, i, p. 49.Google Scholar

page 447 note 1 Diod. 37. I. 2 f.; Plut, . Luc. 1.8Google Scholar; Strabo 5. 4. 2; Cic. Leg. Agr. 2. 90 (contrast 80)Google Scholar; Capitolini, Fasti, CIL i2. I, p. 27Google Scholar.

page 447 note 2 Badian also adduces the fact that Diodorus does not mention Sulla’s consulship until after the rivalry between Marius and Caesar (Historia, xviii [1969], 483Google Scholar). However there are many lacunae left by Photius’ excerpts (Bibliotheca, 391a–392b)—- e.g. no mention of the capture of Asculum or Sulla’s march on Rome. After Photius has referred to the ‘other disturbances’, he continues: and relates the capture of towns near Nola and Sulla’s departure for the East. This suggests that Diodorus was writing here and reserved discussion of Sulla’s military operation sagainst the Samnites until after he had dealt with the domestic upheaval in Rome.

page 447 note 3 Cic. Att. 16. 7. 1; cf. Att. 9. 15a; Caes. B.C. 1. 25. 2.

page 447 note 4 Cf. Veil. 2. 18. 4. Sulpicius’ previous allegiance is shown by his friendship with Livius Drusus (Cic. de Or. 1. 25; 3. 11), his prosecution of Norbanus (Cic. de Or. 2. 107 fr.; Off. 2. 49), his friendship with Q,. Pompeius (Antic. 2).

page 447 note 5 The sequence of events, if not the metaphor, is brought out in the translation of the Budé edition, xiii. 2, p. 63. ‘Proveho’ is used with ‘in altum’ both literally (e.g. Caes. B.G. 4. 28) and metaphorically (Cic. Tuse. 4. 42; Lucr. 5. 1434).

page 448 note 1 Har. Resp. 44: ‘Fuit in his omnibus etsi non iusta … causa,—gravis tarnen et cum aliquo animi virilis dolore coniuncta’.

page 448 note 2 Even if one translates ‘ab optima causa profectum’ as ‘starting from the cause of the boni’, i.e. ‘taking it as his intellectual starting-point’ (cf. Cic. de Or. 2. 58; Fin. 13–73), as for example Badian, does in Historia, xviii (1969), 481–2Google Scholar, it still seems to me unlikely that Cicero īs treating Sulpicius’ opposition to Caesar as a symptom of his loyalty to the boni, When dealing with the other demagogues Cicero mentions each time the specific incident which led them away from the boni. He has to, for the sake of his argument, in order to build up a contrast with the disreputable incident which, in his view, turned Clodius into a demagogue.

page 448 note 3 Cic. Amie. 2.

page 448 note 4 Badian, (Historia, xviii (1969), 482Google Scholar) has identified the man called Pomponius, who was a supporter of Caesar Strabo (Quint. 6. 3 75), with Cn. Pomponius, active accuser and perhaps tribune in 90 (Cic. Brut. 305. cf. MRR ii, p. 26Google Scholar). The latter was an opponent of the boni, in so far as he prosecuted Drusus’ associates. For this reason (and because he may be the person to whom the text of Cicero in Asconius 79 C should refer), Badián believes that he could not have been acting in the senate’s interest in 88. However, the identification is far from certain. So is the emendation of Asconīus. Further, Cn. Pomponius was not necessarily an opponent of all senatorial policy, and, when Drusus’ associates divided, he might reasonably have chosen either side.

page 448 note 5 Asc. 58 C; Dio 36, 39, cf. Cic. Imp. Cn. Pomp. 62, on 71 b.c. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht, iii 3. 1229 ff., cf. 337Google Scholar, believed that this procedure was only used after Sulla’s dictatorship (there is no direct evidence for it before), but such action does not seem impossible on principle in 88. According to Asconius, originally solutio legum could only be enacted by a lex; senatus consulta had merely recommended that the appropriate bill should be presented to the people. Later, reference to the people had been neglected and senatus consulta had ceased to recommend that they should be consulted. Legislation about individuals was not on principle illegal (cf., e.g., the conferment of special commands), and the Twelve Tables’ clause, ‘privilegia ne inroganto’, seems to have had a very limited application (for a recent interpretation see Bleicken, , ZSS lxxvi [1959]. 352 ff.Google Scholar).

page 448 note 6 According to Appian (Lib. 112. 530 ff. and Iber. 84. 364) Scipio Aemilianus was elected consul in both 148 and 135 after a plebiscite temporarily suspending the lex annalis had been passed ex senatus consulto, cf. Ad Herenn. 3. 2 and Livy, Ep. 50 for senatorial discussion. Though Livy, Ep. 50 and 56 suggest that Scipio was personally exempted on both occasions (i.e. by an s.c), this is probably the result of compression. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht, I 3. 539 n. 1Google Scholar; Astin, , Scipio Aemilianus, 66–7Google Scholar.

page 449 note 1 CQ N.s. xv (1965), 281 ffGoogle Scholar. Tribunician legislation of this kind would be totally impossible on Mommsen' view (a 24-day interval) or on that of Michels, A. K.(The Calendar of the Roman Republic, 191 ff.—-25 days)Google Scholar.

page 449 note 2 Cic. AU. 1. 16. 13, cf. Sumner, , AJP lxxxiv (1963), 337 fr.Google Scholar; Astin, , Latomus, xxiii (1964), 421 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 449 note 3 I have been critical of Badian’s chronology of Sulpicius’ tribunate, but it should be pointed out that his solution does reconcile to some extent the evidence of Diodorus on Caesar Strabo and Marius with that of Cicero and Asconius. His chronology and interpretation have been generally followed by Luce, T. J., Historia, xix (1970), 190Google Scholar ff.

page 449 note 4 See 37. 10 on the repeal of Drusus’ law and 37. 2. 11–14 with details of later operations in the Social War, which contain material ignored by Appian.

page 449 note 5 See Jacoby, , FGH iic, 157 ffGoogle Scholar. and especially 188 (discussing the link between Diodorus 37. 29. 3–4 and Plutarch, Mar. 45. 3–4 ═ Poseidonius F. 37).

page 450 note 1 Plut. Mar. 36. 4–5; cf. App. B.C. 1. 61. 275; Dio, fr. 98. 2 Boiss.

page 450 note 2 Mithridates’ invasion of Phrygia is mentioned after domestic affairs of 88 B.c. in Livy, Ep. 77 and presumably occurred in spring 88. The Romans may not yet have heard of the complete loss of Asia, the attack on Rhodes, and the slaughter of Italians (App. Mith. 20–3). Mithridates probably did not massacre the Italians until he realized that alliance with the rebellious socii was valueless (Diod. 37. 2. 11).

page 450 note 3 Marius could expect to go out early in 87, since the Social War would by then be no longer a problem.

page 450 note 4 Cf. Dio, fr. 91 Boiss, on which see Staveley, , Historia xii (1963), 477–8Google Scholar; Livy 41, 10. 5 ff.

page 450 note 5 Plut. Mar. 34; Diod. 37. 29. 1.

page 451 note 1 Cf. Livy, Ep. 56 for ‘legem, quae vetabat quemquam iterum consulem fieri’, believed by Mommsen, (Staatsr. I 3. 519 ff.Google Scholar) to have been passed c. 151 B.c. as a reaction to the third consulship of M. Claudius Marcellus. It is conceivable that, after being repealed for Scipio Aemilianus’ benefit, it had not been re-enacted, as the senate had enjoined (App. Iber. 84. 364). Otherwise Marius must have been exempted from this law as well as the lex annalis (because there was no biennium between his offices)— presumably by s.c. (see Cic. Prov. Cons. 19 for the senate’s co-operative attitude), since the abolition of the lex annalis for a long period would surely have left some trace in our sources.

page 451 note 2 Har. Resp. 43.

page 451 note 3 Sulpicius’ alliance with Marius seems best placed at the stage when, in Cicero’s view, the aura popularis began to sweep him too far.

page 451 note 4 The bill probably made some provision for the swift registration of the voters in their new tribes (perhaps by the censors of 89, if they had not already abdicated their office). If it did not, Marius was unlikely to derive effective assistance from the Italians in an election or legislation for some time. Although the censors of 89 completed the lustrum (Fasti Antiates), according to Cicero (Arch. 11) ‘nullam populi partem essecensam’. Cicero’s statement is probably an exaggeration (MRR ii. 32 f., 37 f.; Suolahti, , Roman Censors, 449–50Google Scholar), yet it may be true as far as the new citizens were concerned. Perhaps the censors were reluctant in the first place to enrol them in classes or tribes. Alternatively, after waiting for the Italians’ status to be settled, they abandoned their task either as a protest against Sulpicius’ legislation or after Sulla' occupation of Rome.

page 451 note 5 App. Mith. 22. 84; Oros. 5. 18. 26–7.

page 452 note 1 See Cic. Leg. Agr. 2. 80 for the loss of vectigalia except for that from the ager Campanus (and a considerable part of the ager Campanus was lost or involved in the war in 90–89 B.C.); Cic. Imp. Cn. Pomp. 19 for the collapse of credit when the news from Asia came. In 91 Livius Drusus had enacted that an eighth of the new issue of silver coins should be silver-plated bronze (Pliny, ,N.H. 33. 46, cfGoogle Scholar. Frank, , ESAR i. 228,–231 f.Google Scholar), perhaps to help finance his land proposals. For the large issues of coin in the Social War see Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coin Hoards, Intro, p. 6Google Scholar and Table XII. The lex Papiria introducing the semiuncial as is plausibly attributed to 89 (MRR ii. 34).

page 452 note 2 Appian, whose evidence has been shown to be more trustworthy than that of Plutarch, implies that Sulla was already on the road to Rome before an attempt was made to take over his army (B.C. 1. 57. 253).

page 452 note 3 See above, pp. 445–6, nn. 1 and 2.