Digital Prosopography of the Roman Republic

CORN1746 L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus')

Leg., lieut. 104. In MRR 1.561, add a reference to Veil. 2.17.3. Tr. mil. 103. See MRR 1.564, 566, note 10. The tribe which Sulla induced to leave the Cimbri and the Teutoni may really have been the German Marsi (Plut. Sulla 4.1), who are found beyond the Lower Rhine in the early Empire (Strabo 7.1.3, 290C; Tac. Ann. 1.50). Like the Helvetian Tigorini (Caes. BG 1.12), they may have joined the Cimbri and the Teutoni in their wanderings. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 292-294, following Leopold's Commentary of 1795. Praetor, propraetor in Cilicia. See MRR 2.14, 16, note 2, 18, 19, note 5 (proconsul, Rufius Festus 15). Debate regarding the dates of these offices continues. Badian, rightly objecting to the blank interval in the early 90s while Sulla's military laurels were fresh, interpreted # in Plut. Sulla 5.1-2 to mean statim, and placed his first candidacy for the praetorship in 99? his successful one in 98, his tenure as pr. urbanus in 97, and his mission in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 96 (Athenaeum 37, 1959, 279-303, now Studies 157-178). These dates are consistent with Sulla's age (born in 138), and also, so Badian maintains, with the political situation in Asia Minor at the time. But the order of events in Liv. Per. 70 is in favor of dates in and after 96, and the word #, like mox, gives room for some interval of time. Sumner, seeking an explanation of why, after Sulla had failed the first time because, as he asserted, the people expected him to be aedile and put on elaborate games, he could so soon be successful without satisfying them, suggested that upon defeat he had immediately run for the aedileship (i.e., for that of 98) and after winning this unattested office went on in 96 to win his praetorship for 95 and his Cilician command in 94 (Athenaeum 56, 1978, 395-396). Note however the passage of Pliny (NH 8.53) in which he states that it was in his praetorship (in praetura) that Sulla was the first of all to exhibit a combat of one hundred maned lions. Moreover, Sherwin-White's analysis of political events in eastern Asia Minor, and of the rather uncertain evidence of the coinages of the Cappadocian kings (see Simonetta, NC 1961, 9ff.), points to the installation of Ariobarzanes as king in 97-96, his expulsion and recourse to Rome ca. 95, and his restoration by Sulla in 94 (MRR 2.18, for sources; Sherwin-White, CQ 21, 1977, 173- 183; JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, esp. 70-72). On Sulla's meeting with the Parthian envoys, see now A. Keaveney, AJPh 102, 1981, 195-212, esp. 195-199. On the Cnidian copy of the Lex de Piratis, see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-219; E. Badian and Th. R. Martin, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-167. On its implications for the government of Cilicia, see Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-13, esp. 6-8. Leg., lieut. 89, perhaps pro praetore. In MRR 2.36, refer also to CIL 1?.1639, 2709, 2509a-ILLRP 346-348; and on Sulla and the Hirpini, to Sulla's Memoirs, frag. 3P; Diod. 37.2.8. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 294-296. Proconsul in Greece and Asia, 87-83. Refer also to CIL 1?.2828-ILLRP 224 (Imp. ca. 85) from Sicyon. Dictator, 82-80. In MRR 2.75, line 4, refer also to Cic., Mil. 39, and a recent -inscription found at Larinum, honoring Sulla Dictator as patron (M. R. Torelli, Athenaeum 51, 1973, 336-354). The date when he abdicated his dictatorship remains in dispute. There are four possibilities, all of them to some degree confused in our sources, because he was consul in 80 and became a private citizen at the earliest at the end of 80 and might have remained dictator until the election in 79 of the consuls for 78 (see MRR 2.82, note 1). The possibilities are as follows: (1) he abdicated with his legislative program largely completed upon entrance into office as consul of 80; (2) he did so at some time during his consulship, or (3) at the end of his consulship; or (4) in 79 before or after the elections for 78. Badian believes that Appian (BC 1.103-104) confused the abdication with the scene of his return to private life, and notes that he is never termed consul and dictator together and that the constitutional task (he was Dictator r. p. c.) had been largely completed in 81. Badian therefore favors the beginning of his consulship in 80 (Historia 11, 1962, 230; Athenaeum 48, 1970, 8-14), and finds support in the implications of a clause in Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 139, posteaquam magistratus creavit legesque constituit, sua cuique procuratio auctoritasque est restituta, and in the statement in Plut. Sulla 6.5-6, quoted from the Memoirs, that his colleague, Metellus Pius, Cos. 80, was # in a partnership of office. But some military resistance continued and neither the reforms nor the colonization were wholly completed. Twyman, noting Appian's tendency to have magistrates take office immediately after election, opts for the middle of 80 after the elections for 79 (Athenaeum 54, 1976, 77-97, 271- 295). In any case a date after 80 seems quite improbable. Consul II, 80. Named as consul in his letter to the Thasians (Dunant and Pouilloux, Etudes Thas. 5.2, no. 174; Sherk, RDGE no. 20, pp. 115-118). Augur or Pontifex? A lively dispute continues regarding Sulla's priesthood, not about his attainment of the augurate, a well-attested fact, but about the date, and the question what was the priesthood which he had held before leaving for Greece in 88, the return of which he demanded in his negotiations with the Senate in 84 (App. BC 1.79). His coinage in 84-83, before his return to Italy, presents the symbols of the augurate, the lituus and the jug, centrally featured between two trophies with the inscription Imper Iterum on the reverses of issues of aurei and denarii (Crawford, RRC 1.373, no. 359, on the coins; Plut. Sulla 19; Fort. Rom. 4; Pausanias 9.40.7, on the victories and trophies; see MRR 2.55), clearly associating, as Crawford remarks, these symbols with his person. For B. Frier they showed that Sulla became an augur before or by 88, a view strongly opposed by Badian and defended by Frier (Arethusa 1, 1968, 26-46; 2, 1969, 187-199, with Badian's reply, ibid. 199-200). If M. Aemilius Scaurus was indubitably an augur (see above, on Scaurus [140]), and therefore also his successor in 88, L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes (see above on RE no. 338), Sulla would obviously be debarred as it was illegal, certainly in 57 (Dio 39.17) and probably much earlier, for members of the same gens to be members of the college of augurs together. See above, on Aemilius Scaurus (140), on the question whether ILS 9338 is exclusively Fasti Augurum or may be a part of more general Fasti Sacerdotum. On the other hand, later evidence indicates that augurs could not be deprived of their priesthood by exile or captivity (Plin. Ep. 4.8.1; Plut. RQ 99). Does Sulla's demand for restoration mean that he had held some other priesthood, or that this highly protected augural tenure could not survive the declaration by the government of Cinna that Sulla was a public enemy (App. BC 1.73; Mith. 51)? We have no information whether Scipio Asiagenes was formally deprived of his priesthood. He was proscribed (Oros. 5.21.3), escaped or retired to Massilia, and died soon afterwards (Cic. Sest. 7; Schol. Bob. 126St). The coinages of Sulla's son Faustus (Crawford, RRC 1.449, no. 426, 56 B.C.), and of his grandson, Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE no. 41; Crawford, RRC 1.456, no. 434, 54 B.C.) show that Sulla was at some time an augur (cf. Suet. Gramm. 12, Cornelius Epicadus . . . Sullae dictatoris libertus calatorque in sacerdotio augurali). On balance there seems to be no firm conclusion regarding an augurate in 88, and Crawford interprets Sulla's emphasis on augural symbols to be primarily an assertion of the validity of the imperium his opponents had withdrawn. What then was the priesthood he demanded to be restored? Badian suggests the pontificate and that Sulla was one of the very few during the Republic who held both major priesthoods. Cf A. Keaveney, AJAR 7, 150ff. (Broughton MRR III)

Status

  • Patrician
  • Nobilis Expand

    Cic. Rosc. Am. 49.141, Cic. Har. Resp. 25.54, Sall. Jug. 95.3, 112.3, VM. 6.9.6-7, (cf VM. 9.2.1), Vell. 2.17.2, Flor. Epit. 2.9.21.2, Tac. Hist. 2.38.1, Porphyr. Hor. Sat. 1.2, [Acro.] Hor. Sat. 1.2, Exuperant. 14, Macrob. 3.11.9-10

Life Dates

  • 138, birth (Broughton MRR I) Expand

    Wins consular election in 50th year (Plut. Sull. 6.10).

  • 78, death (Rüpke 2005)

Relationships

son of
L. Cornelius (379) Sulla (son of? P. Cornelius (384) Sulla (pr. 186)) (RE)
brother of
Cornelia? (C) (daughter of L. Cornelius (379) Sulla) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 10.3(5)

married to
1 Ilia (2) (married to L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 6.11(15)

2 Aelia (164) (married to L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 6.11(15)

3 Cloelia (14) (married to L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 6.11(15)

4 Caecilia (134) Metella (daughter of L. Caecilius (91) L. f. Q. n. Metellus Delmaticus (cos. 119)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Eutr. V 7.3, Plut. Pomp. 9.2f., Plut. Sulla 22.1, Plut. Sulla 33.3(4), Plut. Sulla 34.3, Plut. Sulla 6.10(14)

5 Valeria (389) (daughter of M. Valerius (B) Messalla) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 35.4(6)

divorced from
2 ? Aelia (164) (married to L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009)
3 Cloelia (14) (married to L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 6.11(15)

father of
1 Cornelia (412) (daughter of L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Liv. per. 77, Plut. Sulla 6.11(15)

4 Faustus Cornelius (377) L. f. L. n. Sulla (q. 54) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Auct. vir. ill. 78.9, Plut. Sulla 34.3, Plut. Sulla 37.4(7), Val. Max. III 1.3

4 Cornelia (436) = Fausta Cornelia (daughter of L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 34.3, Plut. Sulla 37.4(7)

5 Cornelia? (448) Postuma (daughter of L. Cornelius (392) L. f. P. n. Sulla Felix ('Epaphroditus') (cos. 88)) (Zmeskal 2009) Expand

Plut. Sulla 37.4(7)

uncle of
P. Cornelius (385) Ser. f. Sulla (sen. 63) (RE) Expand

Cic. off. II 29, Dio XXXVI 44.3

Ser. Cornelius (389) Ser. f. Sulla (sen. 63) (RE)
related to
? P. Cornelius (386) Sulla (cos. desig. 66) (RE) Expand

Cic. off. II 29

Career

  • Quaestor 107 Italia, Numidia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Served under Marius, who left him in Italy to collect a force of cavalry with which he came to Numidia late in 107 or early in 106 (Sall. Iug. 95-96; Liv. Per. 66; Diod. 34.39; Val. Max. 6.9.6; 9.2.1; Plut. Mar. 10.3; Sull. 3.1; App. Num. 4; BC 1.77; Eutrop. 4.27). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Proquaestor 106 Numidia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Sulla, who like C. Gracchus (see 125 and 124, Promagistrates) continued under the same commander as in his year of office, is regularly called Quaestor during these years of extended service by our sources (Sall. Iug. 106.1; see Mommsen, Str. 2.531). Praetors also are often referred to under that title during their term as Propraetors (see 73-71, Promagistrates, on Verres). I have listed such extended magistracies under Promagistrates. (Broughton MRR I)
    • Continued as Quaestor (now pro quaestore) under Marius in Numidia, and after winning popularity and recognition of his military skill was sent with Manlius as an envoy to negotiate with Jugurtha's ally, Bocchus of Mauretania (Sall. Iug. 95-96; 98.4; 100-102; Diod. 34-35.39; Plut. Sull. 3.1; App. Num. 4; cf. Val. Max. 6.9.6). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Envoy) 106 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Sent by Marius in Numidia to negotiate with Bocchus of Mauretania (Sall. Iug. 100; 102; App. Num. 4; see Promagistrates, on Sulla, and Lieutenants, on Manlius). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Propraetor 105 Numidia (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Left in charge of the camp pro praetore by Marius, he used his opportunity to instruct the envoys of Bocchus in the form of their pleas to Marius and to the Roman Senate (Sall. Iug. 103.4-7). He later carried through the negotiations, which involved a second quite dangerous trip to Mauretania, that led to the capture and delivery of Jugurtha to him for transmission to Marius (Sall. Iug. 102-113; Diod. 34-35.39; Liv. Per. 67; Vell. 2.12.1; Plut. Sull. 3.1-3; 6.1-2; Mar. 10.3-4; 32.2-3; Flor. 1.36.17; App. Num. 4-5; Eutrop. 4.27.4; Oros. 5.15.18-19; and on the ring with the scene of the surrender, Val. Max. 8.14.4; Plin. NH 37.9; Plut. Sull. 3.4; Mar. 10.5-6; Praec. ger. rei pub. 12.4; and coins, Grueber, CRRBM 1.471f.; cf. Gsell, Hist. anc. Afrique Nord 7.258, note; see 106, note 2). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Envoy) 105 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • See above, Promagistrates; and below, on Manlius. (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 104 Gallia Transalpina (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Served under Marius in Gaul, and captured Copillus, chief of the Tectosages (Plut. Sull. 4.1). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Tribunus Militum 103 (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Served under Marius in Gaul, where as an Envoy he persuaded the tribe of the Marsi (?) to become friends and allies of Rome (Plut. Sull. 4.1). (Broughton MRR I)
    • E. Sadée (RhM 98 [1939] 44, note 4) is the latest to confess doubt regarding the identity of these Marsi, unless the name of some tribe in southern Gaul lies concealed. Can we imagine that these were the German Marsi (Tac. Ann. 1.50; Germ. 2; cf. Strab. 7.1.3, 290c) and that Sulla like Sertorius (Plut. Sert. 3.2) carried out missions for Marius far to the north ? (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 102 Gallia Cisalpina (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Served under Catulus in norhern Italy (Plut. Sull. 4.2-4; Praec. ger. rei pub. 12). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 101 Gallia Transalpina (Broughton MRR I) Expand
    • Served under Catulus at Vercellae (Plut. Mar. 25.4; cf. 26.3). (Broughton MRR I)
  • Decemvir Sacris Faciundis? 100 to 87 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Repulsa (Pr.)? 98 (Brennan 2000) Expand
    • (Following Badian) repulsa in 98, pr. in 97, pro pr. in 96. p. 746, footnote 255. Thus also Keaveney 2005, pp28-31. (Brennan 2000)
  • Praetor? 97 (Brennan 2000) Expand
    • (Following Badian) repulsa in 98, pr. in 97, pro pr. in 96. p. 746, footnote 255. Thus also Keaveney 2005, pp28-31. (Brennan 2000)
  • Repulsa (Pr.)? c. 96 (Pina Polo 2012) Expand
    • pp. 65-72 (Pina Polo 2012)
  • Propraetor? 96 (Brennan 2000) Expand
    • (Following Badian) repulsa in 98, pr. in 97, pro pr. in 96. p. 746, footnote 255. Thus also Keaveney 2005, pp28-31. (Brennan 2000)
  • Praetor? 95 urbanus, Rome (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Plut. Sull. 5.1-2; Plin. N.H 8.53; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.3; cf. Cic. Font. 43; Liv. Per. 70; Vell. 2.17.3; Val. Max. 7.5.5; Senec. Brev. Vit. 13.6. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Propraetor? 94 Cilicia (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • 6 6 Termed Praetor in Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.3, praetorius in Cic. Font. 43, and Eutrop. 5.3. Like Sentius and others (see 93, Promagistrates, and above, note 3), he held his imperium pro praetore. See Nipperdey, Leges Annales 27 ff.; Mommsen, Str. 2.240, note 5. (Broughton MRR II)
    • Propraetor in Cilicia. He opposed the advance of Mithridates of Pontus into Cappadocia and restored Ariobarzanes to his throne, and received Parthian envoys who made overtures for Roman friendship (Liv. Per. 70; Plut. Sull. 5.3-6; App. Mith. 57; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.4; cf. Vell. 2.24.3; Frontin. Str. 1.5.18). Accused of accepting bribes when he returned, but his accuser Censorinus failed to appear in court (Plut. Sull. 5.6). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 90 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Served under the Consul L. Iulius Caesar (App. BC 1.40; cf. Cic. Font. 43). He attempted to relieve Aesernia (Frontin. Str. 1.5.17; cf. Liv. Per. 73; Oros. 5.18.16), and assisted in Marius' victory over the Marsi (App. BC 1.46). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Legatus (Lieutenant) 89 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Legatus (Liv. Per. 75). He first captured Stabiae by April 29 (Plin. NH 3.70), then Pompeii, and defeated a Samnite army at Nola (Cic. Div. 1.72; 2.65; Val. Max. 1.6.4, consul; Vell. 2.16.3, Pompeii; Plin. NH 22.12; Plut. Cic. 3.1; App. BC 1.50; Polyaen. 8.9.1; Eutrop. 5.3.3). He then carried the war to the Hirpini and elsewhere in Samnium (App. BC 1.51; cf. Vell. 2.16.2, Compsa; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.5). Elected Consul for 88. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Promagistrate? 89 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 7 The independence and prominence of Sulla's activities, with Legates in turn under his command (see Legates, on Albinus), indicate that after the death of the Consul he received a command similar to those of Marius and Caepio in 90. The only title that appears in our sources is Legatus. (Broughton MRR II)
    • See below, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Consul 88 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Grueber, CRRBM 1.484; Cic. Cluent. 11; Leg. Agr. 1. 10; 2.38; Brut. 306; Fast. Ant., Degrassi 164f., and Fast. Cap., ibid. 55, 129, 482f.; Fast. Sac., CIL 12.1, p. 60-ILS 9338, no. 3; Liv. Per. 77; Vell. 2.17.1, and 20.1; Ascon. 64C; Plut. Sull. 6.10; App. BC 1.56; Obseq. 56; Chr. 354; Fast. Hyd.; Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; Fest. 516L; on Sulla, Diod. 37.25; Eutrop. 5.3.3; and on Pompeius, CIL 12. 2.710.-1. de Deios 4.1.1848, cf. 1849; Loewy, I. Gr. Bild. 201, no. 289; Cic. Lael. 2. Sulla received the province of Asia and the command against Mithridates, but when he opposed the bills of the Tribune Sulpicius (see below), one of which gave that command to Marius, he was attacked and fled to his army. He then returned with it and occupied Rome, annul1ed the legislation of Sulpicius, who was put to death, and killed or exiled his other opponents including Marius (Plut. Sull. 6.10; 7.1-10.2; Mar. 34.1-35.4; App. BC 1.55- 63; Mith. 22, and 30; cf. Cic. Phil. 8.7; Diod. 37.29; Liv. Per. 77; Val. Max. 3.8.5; 6.5.7; 8.6.2; 9.7, ext. 1; Flor. 2.9.6-8; Eutrop. 5.4, Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.7-8; Oros 5.19.3-7). Meantime, Pompeius co-operated with Sulla against Sulpicius and in the occupation of Rome (Liv. Per. 77; App. BC 1.59; cf - Cic. Lael. 2). He was given command of the army of Pompeius Strabo, who in turn is suspected of inciting the mutiny in which the Consul Pompeius was later killed (Liv. Per. 77; Vell. 2.20.1; Val. Max. 9.7, ext. 2; App. BC 1.63). They carried a series of measures, one for the exile of the Marian partisans (Vell. 2.19.1; Flor. 2.9.6-8), a second providing that all measures be considered by the Senate before submission to an assembly, a third that laws be carried only in the Comitia Centuriata, a fourth putting some further limitation on the Tribune5 (App. BC 1.59; cf. Liv. Per. 77), a fifth adding 300 personnss to the Senat,9 (App.), a sixth regarding colonies (Liv.), and a seventh applying interest payments on the principal of debts (Fest. 516L), perhaps also one limiting the application of the sponsio (Gaius 3.124). Sulla held the elections and, after securing the oath of the Consulselect Cinna wid Octavius to support his measures (Plut. Sull. 10.3-4; Dio 30-35, fr. 102.3-4), departed for the war with Mithridates (see also Jacoby, -FGrH 2B.1151, no. 252). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Augur? before 87 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • 12 The augural staff appears on the coins both of Sulla in the East and of Faustus Sulla, ca. 62 B. C., before he himself became an Augur, among symbols celebrating his father's honors. Sulla attained the augurate before starting for the East, for one of his demands before his return was the restoration of his priesthood (App. BC 1.79). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Grueber, CRRBM 1.459f., 471f., and esp. 485; App. BC 1.79, which shows that he held the priesthood before he went to Greece. The names of the Augur who died and the Augur who succeeded him in this year are not preserved (see CIL 12.1, p. 60-ILS 9338, no. 3). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Pontifex? before 87 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Leg., lieut. 104. In MRR 1.561, add a reference to Veil. 2.17.3. Tr. mil. 103. See MRR 1.564, 566, note 10. The tribe which Sulla induced to leave the Cimbri and the Teutoni may really have been the German Marsi (Plut. Sulla 4.1), who are found beyond the Lower Rhine in the early Empire (Strabo 7.1.3, 290C; Tac. Ann. 1.50). Like the Helvetian Tigorini (Caes. BG 1.12), they may have joined the Cimbri and the Teutoni in their wanderings. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 292-294, following Leopold's Commentary of 1795. Praetor, propraetor in Cilicia. See MRR 2.14, 16, note 2, 18, 19, note 5 (proconsul, Rufius Festus 15). Debate regarding the dates of these offices continues. Badian, rightly objecting to the blank interval in the early 90s while Sulla's military laurels were fresh, interpreted # in Plut. Sulla 5.1-2 to mean statim, and placed his first candidacy for the praetorship in 99? his successful one in 98, his tenure as pr. urbanus in 97, and his mission in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 96 (Athenaeum 37, 1959, 279-303, now Studies 157-178). These dates are consistent with Sulla's age (born in 138), and also, so Badian maintains, with the political situation in Asia Minor at the time. But the order of events in Liv. Per. 70 is in favor of dates in and after 96, and the word #, like mox, gives room for some interval of time. Sumner, seeking an explanation of why, after Sulla had failed the first time because, as he asserted, the people expected him to be aedile and put on elaborate games, he could so soon be successful without satisfying them, suggested that upon defeat he had immediately run for the aedileship (i.e., for that of 98) and after winning this unattested office went on in 96 to win his praetorship for 95 and his Cilician command in 94 (Athenaeum 56, 1978, 395-396). Note however the passage of Pliny (NH 8.53) in which he states that it was in his praetorship (in praetura) that Sulla was the first of all to exhibit a combat of one hundred maned lions. Moreover, Sherwin-White's analysis of political events in eastern Asia Minor, and of the rather uncertain evidence of the coinages of the Cappadocian kings (see Simonetta, NC 1961, 9ff.), points to the installation of Ariobarzanes as king in 97-96, his expulsion and recourse to Rome ca. 95, and his restoration by Sulla in 94 (MRR 2.18, for sources; Sherwin-White, CQ 21, 1977, 173- 183; JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, esp. 70-72). On Sulla's meeting with the Parthian envoys, see now A. Keaveney, AJPh 102, 1981, 195-212, esp. 195-199. On the Cnidian copy of the Lex de Piratis, see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-219; E. Badian and Th. R. Martin, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-167. On its implications for the government of Cilicia, see Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-13, esp. 6-8. Leg., lieut. 89, perhaps pro praetore. In MRR 2.36, refer also to CIL 1?.1639, 2709, 2509a-ILLRP 346-348; and on Sulla and the Hirpini, to Sulla's Memoirs, frag. 3P; Diod. 37.2.8. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 294-296. Proconsul in Greece and Asia, 87-83. Refer also to CIL 1?.2828-ILLRP 224 (Imp. ca. 85) from Sicyon. Dictator, 82-80. In MRR 2.75, line 4, refer also to Cic., Mil. 39, and a recent -inscription found at Larinum, honoring Sulla Dictator as patron (M. R. Torelli, Athenaeum 51, 1973, 336-354). The date when he abdicated his dictatorship remains in dispute. There are four possibilities, all of them to some degree confused in our sources, because he was consul in 80 and became a private citizen at the earliest at the end of 80 and might have remained dictator until the election in 79 of the consuls for 78 (see MRR 2.82, note 1). The possibilities are as follows: (1) he abdicated with his legislative program largely completed upon entrance into office as consul of 80; (2) he did so at some time during his consulship, or (3) at the end of his consulship; or (4) in 79 before or after the elections for 78. Badian believes that Appian (BC 1.103-104) confused the abdication with the scene of his return to private life, and notes that he is never termed consul and dictator together and that the constitutional task (he was Dictator r. p. c.) had been largely completed in 81. Badian therefore favors the beginning of his consulship in 80 (Historia 11, 1962, 230; Athenaeum 48, 1970, 8-14), and finds support in the implications of a clause in Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 139, posteaquam magistratus creavit legesque constituit, sua cuique procuratio auctoritasque est restituta, and in the statement in Plut. Sulla 6.5-6, quoted from the Memoirs, that his colleague, Metellus Pius, Cos. 80, was # in a partnership of office. But some military resistance continued and neither the reforms nor the colonization were wholly completed. Twyman, noting Appian's tendency to have magistrates take office immediately after election, opts for the middle of 80 after the elections for 79 (Athenaeum 54, 1976, 77-97, 271- 295). In any case a date after 80 seems quite improbable. Consul II, 80. Named as consul in his letter to the Thasians (Dunant and Pouilloux, Etudes Thas. 5.2, no. 174; Sherk, RDGE no. 20, pp. 115-118). Augur or Pontifex? A lively dispute continues regarding Sulla's priesthood, not about his attainment of the augurate, a well-attested fact, but about the date, and the question what was the priesthood which he had held before leaving for Greece in 88, the return of which he demanded in his negotiations with the Senate in 84 (App. BC 1.79). His coinage in 84-83, before his return to Italy, presents the symbols of the augurate, the lituus and the jug, centrally featured between two trophies with the inscription Imper Iterum on the reverses of issues of aurei and denarii (Crawford, RRC 1.373, no. 359, on the coins; Plut. Sulla 19; Fort. Rom. 4; Pausanias 9.40.7, on the victories and trophies; see MRR 2.55), clearly associating, as Crawford remarks, these symbols with his person. For B. Frier they showed that Sulla became an augur before or by 88, a view strongly opposed by Badian and defended by Frier (Arethusa 1, 1968, 26-46; 2, 1969, 187-199, with Badian's reply, ibid. 199-200). If M. Aemilius Scaurus was indubitably an augur (see above, on Scaurus [140]), and therefore also his successor in 88, L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes (see above on RE no. 338), Sulla would obviously be debarred as it was illegal, certainly in 57 (Dio 39.17) and probably much earlier, for members of the same gens to be members of the college of augurs together. See above, on Aemilius Scaurus (140), on the question whether ILS 9338 is exclusively Fasti Augurum or may be a part of more general Fasti Sacerdotum. On the other hand, later evidence indicates that augurs could not be deprived of their priesthood by exile or captivity (Plin. Ep. 4.8.1; Plut. RQ 99). Does Sulla's demand for restoration mean that he had held some other priesthood, or that this highly protected augural tenure could not survive the declaration by the government of Cinna that Sulla was a public enemy (App. BC 1.73; Mith. 51)? We have no information whether Scipio Asiagenes was formally deprived of his priesthood. He was proscribed (Oros. 5.21.3), escaped or retired to Massilia, and died soon afterwards (Cic. Sest. 7; Schol. Bob. 126St). The coinages of Sulla's son Faustus (Crawford, RRC 1.449, no. 426, 56 B.C.), and of his grandson, Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE no. 41; Crawford, RRC 1.456, no. 434, 54 B.C.) show that Sulla was at some time an augur (cf. Suet. Gramm. 12, Cornelius Epicadus . . . Sullae dictatoris libertus calatorque in sacerdotio augurali). On balance there seems to be no firm conclusion regarding an augurate in 88, and Crawford interprets Sulla's emphasis on augural symbols to be primarily an assertion of the validity of the imperium his opponents had withdrawn. What then was the priesthood he demanded to be restored? Badian suggests the pontificate and that Sulla was one of the very few during the Republic who held both major priesthoods. Cf A. Keaveney, AJAR 7, 150ff. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Proconsul 87 Achaea, Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul in command of the war against Mithridates (see 88, Consuls; CIL 12.2.711, 712-ILS 869a). He crossed to Greece and began to besiege Athens, providing armaments and supplies by cutting down groves and seizing temple treasures (Strabo 9.1.20, 398C; Liv. Per. 81; Plut. Sull. 11-12, cf. 19.6; Luc. 2; App. Mith. 30-33, and 54; BC 1.76; Cf. SIG³ 747; Sisenna fr. 81 Peter; Diod. 38.7; Pausan. 1.20.5-7; 9.7.4-6). See Quaestors, on Lucullus. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 86 Achaea, Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • He captured Athens on March 1 (Plut. Sull. 14.6), then the Piraeus, and was victorious in two important engagements against two Mithridatic armies, first at Chaeronea and later at Orchomenos (Liv. Per. 81-82; Plut. Sull. 14.1-21.4; App. Mith. 33-51; Flor. 1.40.10-11; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.7; Eutrop. 5.6; Augustin. CD 2.24; Oros. 6.2.4-7; cf. also, on Athens, Vell. 2.23.3-5; Strabo 9.1.15, 396e, and 20, 398c; Pausan. 1.20.4; Gran. Lic. 3313; Obseq. 56b; on Chaeronea, Frontin. Str. 2.3.17; Plut. Fort. Rom. 4; Memnon in FGrH 3B.352, 32; Pausan. 9.40.7; 10.34.2; on Orchomenos, Frontin. Str. 2.8.12; Polyaen. 8.9.2; Gran. Lic. 33 B; Ammian. 16.12.2). Acclaimed Imperator (CIL 12.2.720, 83 B.C.). See Holleaux, REG 32 (1919) 320-337, and SEG 1.175; Daux, Delphes 481 ff. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 85 Achaea, Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul (cf. App. Mith. 59). He negotiated with Mithridates, first through Archelaus in Greece, and then face to face in the Troad, the peace of Dardanus, on the basis of the situation before the war (Diod. 38.6; Liv. Per. 83; Strabo 13.1.27, 594c; Vell. 2.23.6; Plut. Sull. 22.2-24.4; Luc. 4.1; App. Mith. 54-58, and 64, and 112; Gran. Lic. 33-35 B; Memnon 35, in FGrH 3 B. 354; Flor. 1.40.11-13; Eutrop. 5.7.2; Oros. 6.2.9; cf. FGrH 2B.1151, no. 252; Sall. Hist. 4.69.11-12M; Strabo 12.3.34, 558 c). He sent an expedition into Thrace (Liv. Per. 83; App. Mith. 55; Plut. Sull. 23.1; Gran. Lic. 35B; Eutrop. 5.7.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.7; cf. Cic. Pis. 84). He outmanoeuvred Fimbria and took over his army (Liv. Per. 83; Strabo 13.1.27, 594c; Vell. 2.24.1; Plut. Sull. 24.4-25.1; App. Mith. 59-60; Oros. 6.2.11), and proceeded to punish, reward, and reorganize the communities of Asia (Cic. Flacc. 32; QF 1.1.33; Verr. 2.1.89; Plut. Sull. 25.2; Luc. 4.1-3, cf. 20.4; App. Mith. 61-63; Gran. Lic. 35B; Cassiod. Chr. ad ann. 84; cf. SIG³ 745, Chios; Strabo 13.3.5, 621 c, Magnesia; 13.1.27, 594 c, Ilium; OGIS 441, Stratoniceia; Cic. QF 1.1.33, Rhodes, and also Strabo 14.2.3, 652c; Tac. Ann. 4.56). (Broughton MRR II)
  • Proconsul 84 Achaea, Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul (cf. App. BC 1.80). Returned from Asia to Greece, and while negotiating with the Senate in Rome and recovering from an illness prepared for his return with his army to Italy (Plut. Sull. 26-27; Pomp. 5-6; App. BC 1.77-79; cf. Strabo 10.1.9, 447c, on his illness; 13.1.54, 609c, and Lucian Zeux. 3, on his booty from Athens; Nepos Att. 4; Pausan. 10.21.6, on booty from Delphi; and for games in his honor, IG².2.1036). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Leg., lieut. 104. In MRR 1.561, add a reference to Veil. 2.17.3. Tr. mil. 103. See MRR 1.564, 566, note 10. The tribe which Sulla induced to leave the Cimbri and the Teutoni may really have been the German Marsi (Plut. Sulla 4.1), who are found beyond the Lower Rhine in the early Empire (Strabo 7.1.3, 290C; Tac. Ann. 1.50). Like the Helvetian Tigorini (Caes. BG 1.12), they may have joined the Cimbri and the Teutoni in their wanderings. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 292-294, following Leopold's Commentary of 1795. Praetor, propraetor in Cilicia. See MRR 2.14, 16, note 2, 18, 19, note 5 (proconsul, Rufius Festus 15). Debate regarding the dates of these offices continues. Badian, rightly objecting to the blank interval in the early 90s while Sulla's military laurels were fresh, interpreted # in Plut. Sulla 5.1-2 to mean statim, and placed his first candidacy for the praetorship in 99? his successful one in 98, his tenure as pr. urbanus in 97, and his mission in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 96 (Athenaeum 37, 1959, 279-303, now Studies 157-178). These dates are consistent with Sulla's age (born in 138), and also, so Badian maintains, with the political situation in Asia Minor at the time. But the order of events in Liv. Per. 70 is in favor of dates in and after 96, and the word #, like mox, gives room for some interval of time. Sumner, seeking an explanation of why, after Sulla had failed the first time because, as he asserted, the people expected him to be aedile and put on elaborate games, he could so soon be successful without satisfying them, suggested that upon defeat he had immediately run for the aedileship (i.e., for that of 98) and after winning this unattested office went on in 96 to win his praetorship for 95 and his Cilician command in 94 (Athenaeum 56, 1978, 395-396). Note however the passage of Pliny (NH 8.53) in which he states that it was in his praetorship (in praetura) that Sulla was the first of all to exhibit a combat of one hundred maned lions. Moreover, Sherwin-White's analysis of political events in eastern Asia Minor, and of the rather uncertain evidence of the coinages of the Cappadocian kings (see Simonetta, NC 1961, 9ff.), points to the installation of Ariobarzanes as king in 97-96, his expulsion and recourse to Rome ca. 95, and his restoration by Sulla in 94 (MRR 2.18, for sources; Sherwin-White, CQ 21, 1977, 173- 183; JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, esp. 70-72). On Sulla's meeting with the Parthian envoys, see now A. Keaveney, AJPh 102, 1981, 195-212, esp. 195-199. On the Cnidian copy of the Lex de Piratis, see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-219; E. Badian and Th. R. Martin, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-167. On its implications for the government of Cilicia, see Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-13, esp. 6-8. Leg., lieut. 89, perhaps pro praetore. In MRR 2.36, refer also to CIL 1?.1639, 2709, 2509a-ILLRP 346-348; and on Sulla and the Hirpini, to Sulla's Memoirs, frag. 3P; Diod. 37.2.8. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 294-296. Proconsul in Greece and Asia, 87-83. Refer also to CIL 1?.2828-ILLRP 224 (Imp. ca. 85) from Sicyon. Dictator, 82-80. In MRR 2.75, line 4, refer also to Cic., Mil. 39, and a recent -inscription found at Larinum, honoring Sulla Dictator as patron (M. R. Torelli, Athenaeum 51, 1973, 336-354). The date when he abdicated his dictatorship remains in dispute. There are four possibilities, all of them to some degree confused in our sources, because he was consul in 80 and became a private citizen at the earliest at the end of 80 and might have remained dictator until the election in 79 of the consuls for 78 (see MRR 2.82, note 1). The possibilities are as follows: (1) he abdicated with his legislative program largely completed upon entrance into office as consul of 80; (2) he did so at some time during his consulship, or (3) at the end of his consulship; or (4) in 79 before or after the elections for 78. Badian believes that Appian (BC 1.103-104) confused the abdication with the scene of his return to private life, and notes that he is never termed consul and dictator together and that the constitutional task (he was Dictator r. p. c.) had been largely completed in 81. Badian therefore favors the beginning of his consulship in 80 (Historia 11, 1962, 230; Athenaeum 48, 1970, 8-14), and finds support in the implications of a clause in Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 139, posteaquam magistratus creavit legesque constituit, sua cuique procuratio auctoritasque est restituta, and in the statement in Plut. Sulla 6.5-6, quoted from the Memoirs, that his colleague, Metellus Pius, Cos. 80, was # in a partnership of office. But some military resistance continued and neither the reforms nor the colonization were wholly completed. Twyman, noting Appian's tendency to have magistrates take office immediately after election, opts for the middle of 80 after the elections for 79 (Athenaeum 54, 1976, 77-97, 271- 295). In any case a date after 80 seems quite improbable. Consul II, 80. Named as consul in his letter to the Thasians (Dunant and Pouilloux, Etudes Thas. 5.2, no. 174; Sherk, RDGE no. 20, pp. 115-118). Augur or Pontifex? A lively dispute continues regarding Sulla's priesthood, not about his attainment of the augurate, a well-attested fact, but about the date, and the question what was the priesthood which he had held before leaving for Greece in 88, the return of which he demanded in his negotiations with the Senate in 84 (App. BC 1.79). His coinage in 84-83, before his return to Italy, presents the symbols of the augurate, the lituus and the jug, centrally featured between two trophies with the inscription Imper Iterum on the reverses of issues of aurei and denarii (Crawford, RRC 1.373, no. 359, on the coins; Plut. Sulla 19; Fort. Rom. 4; Pausanias 9.40.7, on the victories and trophies; see MRR 2.55), clearly associating, as Crawford remarks, these symbols with his person. For B. Frier they showed that Sulla became an augur before or by 88, a view strongly opposed by Badian and defended by Frier (Arethusa 1, 1968, 26-46; 2, 1969, 187-199, with Badian's reply, ibid. 199-200). If M. Aemilius Scaurus was indubitably an augur (see above, on Scaurus [140]), and therefore also his successor in 88, L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes (see above on RE no. 338), Sulla would obviously be debarred as it was illegal, certainly in 57 (Dio 39.17) and probably much earlier, for members of the same gens to be members of the college of augurs together. See above, on Aemilius Scaurus (140), on the question whether ILS 9338 is exclusively Fasti Augurum or may be a part of more general Fasti Sacerdotum. On the other hand, later evidence indicates that augurs could not be deprived of their priesthood by exile or captivity (Plin. Ep. 4.8.1; Plut. RQ 99). Does Sulla's demand for restoration mean that he had held some other priesthood, or that this highly protected augural tenure could not survive the declaration by the government of Cinna that Sulla was a public enemy (App. BC 1.73; Mith. 51)? We have no information whether Scipio Asiagenes was formally deprived of his priesthood. He was proscribed (Oros. 5.21.3), escaped or retired to Massilia, and died soon afterwards (Cic. Sest. 7; Schol. Bob. 126St). The coinages of Sulla's son Faustus (Crawford, RRC 1.449, no. 426, 56 B.C.), and of his grandson, Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE no. 41; Crawford, RRC 1.456, no. 434, 54 B.C.) show that Sulla was at some time an augur (cf. Suet. Gramm. 12, Cornelius Epicadus . . . Sullae dictatoris libertus calatorque in sacerdotio augurali). On balance there seems to be no firm conclusion regarding an augurate in 88, and Crawford interprets Sulla's emphasis on augural symbols to be primarily an assertion of the validity of the imperium his opponents had withdrawn. What then was the priesthood he demanded to be restored? Badian suggests the pontificate and that Sulla was one of the very few during the Republic who held both major priesthoods. Cf A. Keaveney, AJAR 7, 150ff. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Moneyer 84 (RRC) Expand
    • ref. 359 (RRC)
    • ref. 367 (RRC)
    • ref. 368 (RRC)
    • ref. 369 (RRC)
    • ref. 370 (RRC)
    • ref. 371 (RRC)
  • Pontifex? 83 to 78 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Leg., lieut. 104. In MRR 1.561, add a reference to Veil. 2.17.3. Tr. mil. 103. See MRR 1.564, 566, note 10. The tribe which Sulla induced to leave the Cimbri and the Teutoni may really have been the German Marsi (Plut. Sulla 4.1), who are found beyond the Lower Rhine in the early Empire (Strabo 7.1.3, 290C; Tac. Ann. 1.50). Like the Helvetian Tigorini (Caes. BG 1.12), they may have joined the Cimbri and the Teutoni in their wanderings. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 292-294, following Leopold's Commentary of 1795. Praetor, propraetor in Cilicia. See MRR 2.14, 16, note 2, 18, 19, note 5 (proconsul, Rufius Festus 15). Debate regarding the dates of these offices continues. Badian, rightly objecting to the blank interval in the early 90s while Sulla's military laurels were fresh, interpreted # in Plut. Sulla 5.1-2 to mean statim, and placed his first candidacy for the praetorship in 99? his successful one in 98, his tenure as pr. urbanus in 97, and his mission in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 96 (Athenaeum 37, 1959, 279-303, now Studies 157-178). These dates are consistent with Sulla's age (born in 138), and also, so Badian maintains, with the political situation in Asia Minor at the time. But the order of events in Liv. Per. 70 is in favor of dates in and after 96, and the word #, like mox, gives room for some interval of time. Sumner, seeking an explanation of why, after Sulla had failed the first time because, as he asserted, the people expected him to be aedile and put on elaborate games, he could so soon be successful without satisfying them, suggested that upon defeat he had immediately run for the aedileship (i.e., for that of 98) and after winning this unattested office went on in 96 to win his praetorship for 95 and his Cilician command in 94 (Athenaeum 56, 1978, 395-396). Note however the passage of Pliny (NH 8.53) in which he states that it was in his praetorship (in praetura) that Sulla was the first of all to exhibit a combat of one hundred maned lions. Moreover, Sherwin-White's analysis of political events in eastern Asia Minor, and of the rather uncertain evidence of the coinages of the Cappadocian kings (see Simonetta, NC 1961, 9ff.), points to the installation of Ariobarzanes as king in 97-96, his expulsion and recourse to Rome ca. 95, and his restoration by Sulla in 94 (MRR 2.18, for sources; Sherwin-White, CQ 21, 1977, 173- 183; JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, esp. 70-72). On Sulla's meeting with the Parthian envoys, see now A. Keaveney, AJPh 102, 1981, 195-212, esp. 195-199. On the Cnidian copy of the Lex de Piratis, see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-219; E. Badian and Th. R. Martin, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-167. On its implications for the government of Cilicia, see Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-13, esp. 6-8. Leg., lieut. 89, perhaps pro praetore. In MRR 2.36, refer also to CIL 1?.1639, 2709, 2509a-ILLRP 346-348; and on Sulla and the Hirpini, to Sulla's Memoirs, frag. 3P; Diod. 37.2.8. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 294-296. Proconsul in Greece and Asia, 87-83. Refer also to CIL 1?.2828-ILLRP 224 (Imp. ca. 85) from Sicyon. Dictator, 82-80. In MRR 2.75, line 4, refer also to Cic., Mil. 39, and a recent -inscription found at Larinum, honoring Sulla Dictator as patron (M. R. Torelli, Athenaeum 51, 1973, 336-354). The date when he abdicated his dictatorship remains in dispute. There are four possibilities, all of them to some degree confused in our sources, because he was consul in 80 and became a private citizen at the earliest at the end of 80 and might have remained dictator until the election in 79 of the consuls for 78 (see MRR 2.82, note 1). The possibilities are as follows: (1) he abdicated with his legislative program largely completed upon entrance into office as consul of 80; (2) he did so at some time during his consulship, or (3) at the end of his consulship; or (4) in 79 before or after the elections for 78. Badian believes that Appian (BC 1.103-104) confused the abdication with the scene of his return to private life, and notes that he is never termed consul and dictator together and that the constitutional task (he was Dictator r. p. c.) had been largely completed in 81. Badian therefore favors the beginning of his consulship in 80 (Historia 11, 1962, 230; Athenaeum 48, 1970, 8-14), and finds support in the implications of a clause in Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 139, posteaquam magistratus creavit legesque constituit, sua cuique procuratio auctoritasque est restituta, and in the statement in Plut. Sulla 6.5-6, quoted from the Memoirs, that his colleague, Metellus Pius, Cos. 80, was # in a partnership of office. But some military resistance continued and neither the reforms nor the colonization were wholly completed. Twyman, noting Appian's tendency to have magistrates take office immediately after election, opts for the middle of 80 after the elections for 79 (Athenaeum 54, 1976, 77-97, 271- 295). In any case a date after 80 seems quite improbable. Consul II, 80. Named as consul in his letter to the Thasians (Dunant and Pouilloux, Etudes Thas. 5.2, no. 174; Sherk, RDGE no. 20, pp. 115-118). Augur or Pontifex? A lively dispute continues regarding Sulla's priesthood, not about his attainment of the augurate, a well-attested fact, but about the date, and the question what was the priesthood which he had held before leaving for Greece in 88, the return of which he demanded in his negotiations with the Senate in 84 (App. BC 1.79). His coinage in 84-83, before his return to Italy, presents the symbols of the augurate, the lituus and the jug, centrally featured between two trophies with the inscription Imper Iterum on the reverses of issues of aurei and denarii (Crawford, RRC 1.373, no. 359, on the coins; Plut. Sulla 19; Fort. Rom. 4; Pausanias 9.40.7, on the victories and trophies; see MRR 2.55), clearly associating, as Crawford remarks, these symbols with his person. For B. Frier they showed that Sulla became an augur before or by 88, a view strongly opposed by Badian and defended by Frier (Arethusa 1, 1968, 26-46; 2, 1969, 187-199, with Badian's reply, ibid. 199-200). If M. Aemilius Scaurus was indubitably an augur (see above, on Scaurus [140]), and therefore also his successor in 88, L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes (see above on RE no. 338), Sulla would obviously be debarred as it was illegal, certainly in 57 (Dio 39.17) and probably much earlier, for members of the same gens to be members of the college of augurs together. See above, on Aemilius Scaurus (140), on the question whether ILS 9338 is exclusively Fasti Augurum or may be a part of more general Fasti Sacerdotum. On the other hand, later evidence indicates that augurs could not be deprived of their priesthood by exile or captivity (Plin. Ep. 4.8.1; Plut. RQ 99). Does Sulla's demand for restoration mean that he had held some other priesthood, or that this highly protected augural tenure could not survive the declaration by the government of Cinna that Sulla was a public enemy (App. BC 1.73; Mith. 51)? We have no information whether Scipio Asiagenes was formally deprived of his priesthood. He was proscribed (Oros. 5.21.3), escaped or retired to Massilia, and died soon afterwards (Cic. Sest. 7; Schol. Bob. 126St). The coinages of Sulla's son Faustus (Crawford, RRC 1.449, no. 426, 56 B.C.), and of his grandson, Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE no. 41; Crawford, RRC 1.456, no. 434, 54 B.C.) show that Sulla was at some time an augur (cf. Suet. Gramm. 12, Cornelius Epicadus . . . Sullae dictatoris libertus calatorque in sacerdotio augurali). On balance there seems to be no firm conclusion regarding an augurate in 88, and Crawford interprets Sulla's emphasis on augural symbols to be primarily an assertion of the validity of the imperium his opponents had withdrawn. What then was the priesthood he demanded to be restored? Badian suggests the pontificate and that Sulla was one of the very few during the Republic who held both major priesthoods. Cf A. Keaveney, AJAR 7, 150ff. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Moneyer 83 (RRC) Expand
    • ref. 359 (RRC)
    • ref. 367 (RRC)
    • ref. 368 (RRC)
    • ref. 369 (RRC)
    • ref. 370 (RRC)
    • ref. 371 (RRC)
  • Augur? 83 to 78 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Leg., lieut. 104. In MRR 1.561, add a reference to Veil. 2.17.3. Tr. mil. 103. See MRR 1.564, 566, note 10. The tribe which Sulla induced to leave the Cimbri and the Teutoni may really have been the German Marsi (Plut. Sulla 4.1), who are found beyond the Lower Rhine in the early Empire (Strabo 7.1.3, 290C; Tac. Ann. 1.50). Like the Helvetian Tigorini (Caes. BG 1.12), they may have joined the Cimbri and the Teutoni in their wanderings. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 292-294, following Leopold's Commentary of 1795. Praetor, propraetor in Cilicia. See MRR 2.14, 16, note 2, 18, 19, note 5 (proconsul, Rufius Festus 15). Debate regarding the dates of these offices continues. Badian, rightly objecting to the blank interval in the early 90s while Sulla's military laurels were fresh, interpreted # in Plut. Sulla 5.1-2 to mean statim, and placed his first candidacy for the praetorship in 99? his successful one in 98, his tenure as pr. urbanus in 97, and his mission in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 96 (Athenaeum 37, 1959, 279-303, now Studies 157-178). These dates are consistent with Sulla's age (born in 138), and also, so Badian maintains, with the political situation in Asia Minor at the time. But the order of events in Liv. Per. 70 is in favor of dates in and after 96, and the word #, like mox, gives room for some interval of time. Sumner, seeking an explanation of why, after Sulla had failed the first time because, as he asserted, the people expected him to be aedile and put on elaborate games, he could so soon be successful without satisfying them, suggested that upon defeat he had immediately run for the aedileship (i.e., for that of 98) and after winning this unattested office went on in 96 to win his praetorship for 95 and his Cilician command in 94 (Athenaeum 56, 1978, 395-396). Note however the passage of Pliny (NH 8.53) in which he states that it was in his praetorship (in praetura) that Sulla was the first of all to exhibit a combat of one hundred maned lions. Moreover, Sherwin-White's analysis of political events in eastern Asia Minor, and of the rather uncertain evidence of the coinages of the Cappadocian kings (see Simonetta, NC 1961, 9ff.), points to the installation of Ariobarzanes as king in 97-96, his expulsion and recourse to Rome ca. 95, and his restoration by Sulla in 94 (MRR 2.18, for sources; Sherwin-White, CQ 21, 1977, 173- 183; JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, esp. 70-72). On Sulla's meeting with the Parthian envoys, see now A. Keaveney, AJPh 102, 1981, 195-212, esp. 195-199. On the Cnidian copy of the Lex de Piratis, see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-219; E. Badian and Th. R. Martin, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-167. On its implications for the government of Cilicia, see Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-13, esp. 6-8. Leg., lieut. 89, perhaps pro praetore. In MRR 2.36, refer also to CIL 1?.1639, 2709, 2509a-ILLRP 346-348; and on Sulla and the Hirpini, to Sulla's Memoirs, frag. 3P; Diod. 37.2.8. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 294-296. Proconsul in Greece and Asia, 87-83. Refer also to CIL 1?.2828-ILLRP 224 (Imp. ca. 85) from Sicyon. Dictator, 82-80. In MRR 2.75, line 4, refer also to Cic., Mil. 39, and a recent -inscription found at Larinum, honoring Sulla Dictator as patron (M. R. Torelli, Athenaeum 51, 1973, 336-354). The date when he abdicated his dictatorship remains in dispute. There are four possibilities, all of them to some degree confused in our sources, because he was consul in 80 and became a private citizen at the earliest at the end of 80 and might have remained dictator until the election in 79 of the consuls for 78 (see MRR 2.82, note 1). The possibilities are as follows: (1) he abdicated with his legislative program largely completed upon entrance into office as consul of 80; (2) he did so at some time during his consulship, or (3) at the end of his consulship; or (4) in 79 before or after the elections for 78. Badian believes that Appian (BC 1.103-104) confused the abdication with the scene of his return to private life, and notes that he is never termed consul and dictator together and that the constitutional task (he was Dictator r. p. c.) had been largely completed in 81. Badian therefore favors the beginning of his consulship in 80 (Historia 11, 1962, 230; Athenaeum 48, 1970, 8-14), and finds support in the implications of a clause in Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 139, posteaquam magistratus creavit legesque constituit, sua cuique procuratio auctoritasque est restituta, and in the statement in Plut. Sulla 6.5-6, quoted from the Memoirs, that his colleague, Metellus Pius, Cos. 80, was # in a partnership of office. But some military resistance continued and neither the reforms nor the colonization were wholly completed. Twyman, noting Appian's tendency to have magistrates take office immediately after election, opts for the middle of 80 after the elections for 79 (Athenaeum 54, 1976, 77-97, 271- 295). In any case a date after 80 seems quite improbable. Consul II, 80. Named as consul in his letter to the Thasians (Dunant and Pouilloux, Etudes Thas. 5.2, no. 174; Sherk, RDGE no. 20, pp. 115-118). Augur or Pontifex? A lively dispute continues regarding Sulla's priesthood, not about his attainment of the augurate, a well-attested fact, but about the date, and the question what was the priesthood which he had held before leaving for Greece in 88, the return of which he demanded in his negotiations with the Senate in 84 (App. BC 1.79). His coinage in 84-83, before his return to Italy, presents the symbols of the augurate, the lituus and the jug, centrally featured between two trophies with the inscription Imper Iterum on the reverses of issues of aurei and denarii (Crawford, RRC 1.373, no. 359, on the coins; Plut. Sulla 19; Fort. Rom. 4; Pausanias 9.40.7, on the victories and trophies; see MRR 2.55), clearly associating, as Crawford remarks, these symbols with his person. For B. Frier they showed that Sulla became an augur before or by 88, a view strongly opposed by Badian and defended by Frier (Arethusa 1, 1968, 26-46; 2, 1969, 187-199, with Badian's reply, ibid. 199-200). If M. Aemilius Scaurus was indubitably an augur (see above, on Scaurus [140]), and therefore also his successor in 88, L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes (see above on RE no. 338), Sulla would obviously be debarred as it was illegal, certainly in 57 (Dio 39.17) and probably much earlier, for members of the same gens to be members of the college of augurs together. See above, on Aemilius Scaurus (140), on the question whether ILS 9338 is exclusively Fasti Augurum or may be a part of more general Fasti Sacerdotum. On the other hand, later evidence indicates that augurs could not be deprived of their priesthood by exile or captivity (Plin. Ep. 4.8.1; Plut. RQ 99). Does Sulla's demand for restoration mean that he had held some other priesthood, or that this highly protected augural tenure could not survive the declaration by the government of Cinna that Sulla was a public enemy (App. BC 1.73; Mith. 51)? We have no information whether Scipio Asiagenes was formally deprived of his priesthood. He was proscribed (Oros. 5.21.3), escaped or retired to Massilia, and died soon afterwards (Cic. Sest. 7; Schol. Bob. 126St). The coinages of Sulla's son Faustus (Crawford, RRC 1.449, no. 426, 56 B.C.), and of his grandson, Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE no. 41; Crawford, RRC 1.456, no. 434, 54 B.C.) show that Sulla was at some time an augur (cf. Suet. Gramm. 12, Cornelius Epicadus . . . Sullae dictatoris libertus calatorque in sacerdotio augurali). On balance there seems to be no firm conclusion regarding an augurate in 88, and Crawford interprets Sulla's emphasis on augural symbols to be primarily an assertion of the validity of the imperium his opponents had withdrawn. What then was the priesthood he demanded to be restored? Badian suggests the pontificate and that Sulla was one of the very few during the Republic who held both major priesthoods. Cf A. Keaveney, AJAR 7, 150ff. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Proconsul 83 Achaea, Asia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul (App. BC 1.80-81) and Imperator (CIL 12.2.720, and 2828). Invading Italy, he drew possible support away from his opponents by accepting the registration of new citizens as it stood, defeated Norbanus, won over Scipio's army to himself, and rallied many other leaders to him (Plut. Sull. 27.1-28.3; Pomp. 6.1-8.3; Sert. 6.1-2; Crass. 6.2-3; App. BC 1.79-86; cf. Sulla fr. 18 Peter; ILS 251, and 3240; Cic. Brut. 227; Leg. Man. 8; Font. 6; Phil. 12.27; 13.2; FGrH 2 B. 115 1, no. 252; Liv. Per. 85, and 86; Vell. 2.25.1-4; Val. Max. 5.2.9; Flor. 2.9.18- 20; Obseq. 57; Eutrop. 5.7.4; Iul. Exup. 7; Oros. 5.20.1-2). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Leg., lieut. 104. In MRR 1.561, add a reference to Veil. 2.17.3. Tr. mil. 103. See MRR 1.564, 566, note 10. The tribe which Sulla induced to leave the Cimbri and the Teutoni may really have been the German Marsi (Plut. Sulla 4.1), who are found beyond the Lower Rhine in the early Empire (Strabo 7.1.3, 290C; Tac. Ann. 1.50). Like the Helvetian Tigorini (Caes. BG 1.12), they may have joined the Cimbri and the Teutoni in their wanderings. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 292-294, following Leopold's Commentary of 1795. Praetor, propraetor in Cilicia. See MRR 2.14, 16, note 2, 18, 19, note 5 (proconsul, Rufius Festus 15). Debate regarding the dates of these offices continues. Badian, rightly objecting to the blank interval in the early 90s while Sulla's military laurels were fresh, interpreted # in Plut. Sulla 5.1-2 to mean statim, and placed his first candidacy for the praetorship in 99? his successful one in 98, his tenure as pr. urbanus in 97, and his mission in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 96 (Athenaeum 37, 1959, 279-303, now Studies 157-178). These dates are consistent with Sulla's age (born in 138), and also, so Badian maintains, with the political situation in Asia Minor at the time. But the order of events in Liv. Per. 70 is in favor of dates in and after 96, and the word #, like mox, gives room for some interval of time. Sumner, seeking an explanation of why, after Sulla had failed the first time because, as he asserted, the people expected him to be aedile and put on elaborate games, he could so soon be successful without satisfying them, suggested that upon defeat he had immediately run for the aedileship (i.e., for that of 98) and after winning this unattested office went on in 96 to win his praetorship for 95 and his Cilician command in 94 (Athenaeum 56, 1978, 395-396). Note however the passage of Pliny (NH 8.53) in which he states that it was in his praetorship (in praetura) that Sulla was the first of all to exhibit a combat of one hundred maned lions. Moreover, Sherwin-White's analysis of political events in eastern Asia Minor, and of the rather uncertain evidence of the coinages of the Cappadocian kings (see Simonetta, NC 1961, 9ff.), points to the installation of Ariobarzanes as king in 97-96, his expulsion and recourse to Rome ca. 95, and his restoration by Sulla in 94 (MRR 2.18, for sources; Sherwin-White, CQ 21, 1977, 173- 183; JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, esp. 70-72). On Sulla's meeting with the Parthian envoys, see now A. Keaveney, AJPh 102, 1981, 195-212, esp. 195-199. On the Cnidian copy of the Lex de Piratis, see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-219; E. Badian and Th. R. Martin, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-167. On its implications for the government of Cilicia, see Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-13, esp. 6-8. Leg., lieut. 89, perhaps pro praetore. In MRR 2.36, refer also to CIL 1?.1639, 2709, 2509a-ILLRP 346-348; and on Sulla and the Hirpini, to Sulla's Memoirs, frag. 3P; Diod. 37.2.8. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 294-296. Proconsul in Greece and Asia, 87-83. Refer also to CIL 1?.2828-ILLRP 224 (Imp. ca. 85) from Sicyon. Dictator, 82-80. In MRR 2.75, line 4, refer also to Cic., Mil. 39, and a recent -inscription found at Larinum, honoring Sulla Dictator as patron (M. R. Torelli, Athenaeum 51, 1973, 336-354). The date when he abdicated his dictatorship remains in dispute. There are four possibilities, all of them to some degree confused in our sources, because he was consul in 80 and became a private citizen at the earliest at the end of 80 and might have remained dictator until the election in 79 of the consuls for 78 (see MRR 2.82, note 1). The possibilities are as follows: (1) he abdicated with his legislative program largely completed upon entrance into office as consul of 80; (2) he did so at some time during his consulship, or (3) at the end of his consulship; or (4) in 79 before or after the elections for 78. Badian believes that Appian (BC 1.103-104) confused the abdication with the scene of his return to private life, and notes that he is never termed consul and dictator together and that the constitutional task (he was Dictator r. p. c.) had been largely completed in 81. Badian therefore favors the beginning of his consulship in 80 (Historia 11, 1962, 230; Athenaeum 48, 1970, 8-14), and finds support in the implications of a clause in Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 139, posteaquam magistratus creavit legesque constituit, sua cuique procuratio auctoritasque est restituta, and in the statement in Plut. Sulla 6.5-6, quoted from the Memoirs, that his colleague, Metellus Pius, Cos. 80, was # in a partnership of office. But some military resistance continued and neither the reforms nor the colonization were wholly completed. Twyman, noting Appian's tendency to have magistrates take office immediately after election, opts for the middle of 80 after the elections for 79 (Athenaeum 54, 1976, 77-97, 271- 295). In any case a date after 80 seems quite improbable. Consul II, 80. Named as consul in his letter to the Thasians (Dunant and Pouilloux, Etudes Thas. 5.2, no. 174; Sherk, RDGE no. 20, pp. 115-118). Augur or Pontifex? A lively dispute continues regarding Sulla's priesthood, not about his attainment of the augurate, a well-attested fact, but about the date, and the question what was the priesthood which he had held before leaving for Greece in 88, the return of which he demanded in his negotiations with the Senate in 84 (App. BC 1.79). His coinage in 84-83, before his return to Italy, presents the symbols of the augurate, the lituus and the jug, centrally featured between two trophies with the inscription Imper Iterum on the reverses of issues of aurei and denarii (Crawford, RRC 1.373, no. 359, on the coins; Plut. Sulla 19; Fort. Rom. 4; Pausanias 9.40.7, on the victories and trophies; see MRR 2.55), clearly associating, as Crawford remarks, these symbols with his person. For B. Frier they showed that Sulla became an augur before or by 88, a view strongly opposed by Badian and defended by Frier (Arethusa 1, 1968, 26-46; 2, 1969, 187-199, with Badian's reply, ibid. 199-200). If M. Aemilius Scaurus was indubitably an augur (see above, on Scaurus [140]), and therefore also his successor in 88, L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes (see above on RE no. 338), Sulla would obviously be debarred as it was illegal, certainly in 57 (Dio 39.17) and probably much earlier, for members of the same gens to be members of the college of augurs together. See above, on Aemilius Scaurus (140), on the question whether ILS 9338 is exclusively Fasti Augurum or may be a part of more general Fasti Sacerdotum. On the other hand, later evidence indicates that augurs could not be deprived of their priesthood by exile or captivity (Plin. Ep. 4.8.1; Plut. RQ 99). Does Sulla's demand for restoration mean that he had held some other priesthood, or that this highly protected augural tenure could not survive the declaration by the government of Cinna that Sulla was a public enemy (App. BC 1.73; Mith. 51)? We have no information whether Scipio Asiagenes was formally deprived of his priesthood. He was proscribed (Oros. 5.21.3), escaped or retired to Massilia, and died soon afterwards (Cic. Sest. 7; Schol. Bob. 126St). The coinages of Sulla's son Faustus (Crawford, RRC 1.449, no. 426, 56 B.C.), and of his grandson, Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE no. 41; Crawford, RRC 1.456, no. 434, 54 B.C.) show that Sulla was at some time an augur (cf. Suet. Gramm. 12, Cornelius Epicadus . . . Sullae dictatoris libertus calatorque in sacerdotio augurali). On balance there seems to be no firm conclusion regarding an augurate in 88, and Crawford interprets Sulla's emphasis on augural symbols to be primarily an assertion of the validity of the imperium his opponents had withdrawn. What then was the priesthood he demanded to be restored? Badian suggests the pontificate and that Sulla was one of the very few during the Republic who held both major priesthoods. Cf A. Keaveney, AJAR 7, 150ff. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Proconsul 82 Italia (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • Proconsul (SIG³ 745; App. BC 180-81). Successful against Marius the Consul at Sacriportus, Sulla besieged him in Praeneste, seized Rome, defeated Papirius Carbo in Etruria, repulsed several attempts to relieve Praeneste, and finally ended the chief resistance by winning the desperate battle with the Samnites at the Colline Gate, and then turned to the massacre and proscription of his opponents (Plut. Sull. 118.42-32.2; App. BC 1.87-97; on Sacriportus, Diod. 38.15; Liv. Per. 87; Flor. 2.9.23; Eutrop. 5.8.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.8; Oros. 5.20.6; on Praeneste and the Colline Gate, CIL 12, pp. 215, 220, Sulla's Ludi; Sall. Hist. 1.39-42M; Liv. Per. 88; Vell. 2.27.1-6; Val. Max.1.2.3; 6.2.8; Ascon. 88, and 93C; Frontin. Str. 1.11.11; 2.9.3; Plut. Crass. 6; Flor. 2.9.23-24; Dio 30-35, fr. 108; Eutrop. 5.8.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.8; Oros. 5.20.9; on the massacre and proscriptions , Cic. Rosc. Amer. 6, 89, 125, 136-137; Quinet. 76; Cluent. 151; Verr. 2.1.38 and 123; 2.3. 81; Leg. Agr. 2.56; Lig. 12; Phil. 14.23; Att. 7.7.7; 9.7c.1, and 10.3, and 11.3; Off. 1.43; 2.27; Q. Cic. Comm. Pet. 10; Sall. Cat. 37.6-9; 51.32-34; Hist. 1.43- 45, and 47.51, and 55.6 and 16-19M; Diod. 38.19; Liv. Per. 88; Dion. Hal. 5.77; 8.80.2; Vell. 2.22.5, and 28.2-4; Val. Max. 3.1.2b; 6.2.8; 7.3.6; 9.2.1; Ascon. 73, and 90C; Senec. Benef. 5.16.3; Clement. 1.12.2; Prov. 3.7-8; Ira 3.18; Lucan 2.173-191, and Schol. Bern. ad loc.; Quintil. Inst. Or. 11.1.85; Suet. Iul. 1.2-3; Plut. Crass. 2.3; 6.7; Comp. Lysand. and Sull. 3; Comp. Nic. and Crass. 1; Cat. Min. 3.3-4; 17.4-5; Caes. 1; Flor. 2.9.24-28, and 11.3; Dio 30-35, fr. 109.1-21; 43.43.4; Obseq. 57; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.9-10; Oros. 5.21. 1-10; Augustin. CD 3.28-29). See above, Dictator; and below, Legates. (Broughton MRR II)
    • 6 Some of the events referred to in these passages took place in 81 and some in 80, but the process began in 82, and many of them cannot be assigned to any specific year. The proscriptions ended officially on June 1, 81 (Cic. Rosc. Amer. 128), but even then the reign of terror was by no means finished. I have gathered the references here for the sake of convenience. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Dictator Legibus Faciendis Et Rei Publicae Constituendae Causa 82 (Broughton MRR III) Expand
    • Leg., lieut. 104. In MRR 1.561, add a reference to Veil. 2.17.3. Tr. mil. 103. See MRR 1.564, 566, note 10. The tribe which Sulla induced to leave the Cimbri and the Teutoni may really have been the German Marsi (Plut. Sulla 4.1), who are found beyond the Lower Rhine in the early Empire (Strabo 7.1.3, 290C; Tac. Ann. 1.50). Like the Helvetian Tigorini (Caes. BG 1.12), they may have joined the Cimbri and the Teutoni in their wanderings. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 292-294, following Leopold's Commentary of 1795. Praetor, propraetor in Cilicia. See MRR 2.14, 16, note 2, 18, 19, note 5 (proconsul, Rufius Festus 15). Debate regarding the dates of these offices continues. Badian, rightly objecting to the blank interval in the early 90s while Sulla's military laurels were fresh, interpreted # in Plut. Sulla 5.1-2 to mean statim, and placed his first candidacy for the praetorship in 99? his successful one in 98, his tenure as pr. urbanus in 97, and his mission in Cilicia and Cappadocia in 96 (Athenaeum 37, 1959, 279-303, now Studies 157-178). These dates are consistent with Sulla's age (born in 138), and also, so Badian maintains, with the political situation in Asia Minor at the time. But the order of events in Liv. Per. 70 is in favor of dates in and after 96, and the word #, like mox, gives room for some interval of time. Sumner, seeking an explanation of why, after Sulla had failed the first time because, as he asserted, the people expected him to be aedile and put on elaborate games, he could so soon be successful without satisfying them, suggested that upon defeat he had immediately run for the aedileship (i.e., for that of 98) and after winning this unattested office went on in 96 to win his praetorship for 95 and his Cilician command in 94 (Athenaeum 56, 1978, 395-396). Note however the passage of Pliny (NH 8.53) in which he states that it was in his praetorship (in praetura) that Sulla was the first of all to exhibit a combat of one hundred maned lions. Moreover, Sherwin-White's analysis of political events in eastern Asia Minor, and of the rather uncertain evidence of the coinages of the Cappadocian kings (see Simonetta, NC 1961, 9ff.), points to the installation of Ariobarzanes as king in 97-96, his expulsion and recourse to Rome ca. 95, and his restoration by Sulla in 94 (MRR 2.18, for sources; Sherwin-White, CQ 21, 1977, 173- 183; JRS 67, 1977, 62-75, esp. 70-72). On Sulla's meeting with the Parthian envoys, see now A. Keaveney, AJPh 102, 1981, 195-212, esp. 195-199. On the Cnidian copy of the Lex de Piratis, see M. Hassall, M. Crawford, and J. M. Reynolds, JRS 64, 1974, 195-219; E. Badian and Th. R. Martin, ZPE 35, 1979, 153-167. On its implications for the government of Cilicia, see Sherwin-White, JRS 66, 1976, 1-13, esp. 6-8. Leg., lieut. 89, perhaps pro praetore. In MRR 2.36, refer also to CIL 1?.1639, 2709, 2509a-ILLRP 346-348; and on Sulla and the Hirpini, to Sulla's Memoirs, frag. 3P; Diod. 37.2.8. See A. Keaveney, CPh 76, 1981, 294-296. Proconsul in Greece and Asia, 87-83. Refer also to CIL 1?.2828-ILLRP 224 (Imp. ca. 85) from Sicyon. Dictator, 82-80. In MRR 2.75, line 4, refer also to Cic., Mil. 39, and a recent -inscription found at Larinum, honoring Sulla Dictator as patron (M. R. Torelli, Athenaeum 51, 1973, 336-354). The date when he abdicated his dictatorship remains in dispute. There are four possibilities, all of them to some degree confused in our sources, because he was consul in 80 and became a private citizen at the earliest at the end of 80 and might have remained dictator until the election in 79 of the consuls for 78 (see MRR 2.82, note 1). The possibilities are as follows: (1) he abdicated with his legislative program largely completed upon entrance into office as consul of 80; (2) he did so at some time during his consulship, or (3) at the end of his consulship; or (4) in 79 before or after the elections for 78. Badian believes that Appian (BC 1.103-104) confused the abdication with the scene of his return to private life, and notes that he is never termed consul and dictator together and that the constitutional task (he was Dictator r. p. c.) had been largely completed in 81. Badian therefore favors the beginning of his consulship in 80 (Historia 11, 1962, 230; Athenaeum 48, 1970, 8-14), and finds support in the implications of a clause in Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 139, posteaquam magistratus creavit legesque constituit, sua cuique procuratio auctoritasque est restituta, and in the statement in Plut. Sulla 6.5-6, quoted from the Memoirs, that his colleague, Metellus Pius, Cos. 80, was # in a partnership of office. But some military resistance continued and neither the reforms nor the colonization were wholly completed. Twyman, noting Appian's tendency to have magistrates take office immediately after election, opts for the middle of 80 after the elections for 79 (Athenaeum 54, 1976, 77-97, 271- 295). In any case a date after 80 seems quite improbable. Consul II, 80. Named as consul in his letter to the Thasians (Dunant and Pouilloux, Etudes Thas. 5.2, no. 174; Sherk, RDGE no. 20, pp. 115-118). Augur or Pontifex? A lively dispute continues regarding Sulla's priesthood, not about his attainment of the augurate, a well-attested fact, but about the date, and the question what was the priesthood which he had held before leaving for Greece in 88, the return of which he demanded in his negotiations with the Senate in 84 (App. BC 1.79). His coinage in 84-83, before his return to Italy, presents the symbols of the augurate, the lituus and the jug, centrally featured between two trophies with the inscription Imper Iterum on the reverses of issues of aurei and denarii (Crawford, RRC 1.373, no. 359, on the coins; Plut. Sulla 19; Fort. Rom. 4; Pausanias 9.40.7, on the victories and trophies; see MRR 2.55), clearly associating, as Crawford remarks, these symbols with his person. For B. Frier they showed that Sulla became an augur before or by 88, a view strongly opposed by Badian and defended by Frier (Arethusa 1, 1968, 26-46; 2, 1969, 187-199, with Badian's reply, ibid. 199-200). If M. Aemilius Scaurus was indubitably an augur (see above, on Scaurus [140]), and therefore also his successor in 88, L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes (see above on RE no. 338), Sulla would obviously be debarred as it was illegal, certainly in 57 (Dio 39.17) and probably much earlier, for members of the same gens to be members of the college of augurs together. See above, on Aemilius Scaurus (140), on the question whether ILS 9338 is exclusively Fasti Augurum or may be a part of more general Fasti Sacerdotum. On the other hand, later evidence indicates that augurs could not be deprived of their priesthood by exile or captivity (Plin. Ep. 4.8.1; Plut. RQ 99). Does Sulla's demand for restoration mean that he had held some other priesthood, or that this highly protected augural tenure could not survive the declaration by the government of Cinna that Sulla was a public enemy (App. BC 1.73; Mith. 51)? We have no information whether Scipio Asiagenes was formally deprived of his priesthood. He was proscribed (Oros. 5.21.3), escaped or retired to Massilia, and died soon afterwards (Cic. Sest. 7; Schol. Bob. 126St). The coinages of Sulla's son Faustus (Crawford, RRC 1.449, no. 426, 56 B.C.), and of his grandson, Q. Pompeius Rufus (RE no. 41; Crawford, RRC 1.456, no. 434, 54 B.C.) show that Sulla was at some time an augur (cf. Suet. Gramm. 12, Cornelius Epicadus . . . Sullae dictatoris libertus calatorque in sacerdotio augurali). On balance there seems to be no firm conclusion regarding an augurate in 88, and Crawford interprets Sulla's emphasis on augural symbols to be primarily an assertion of the validity of the imperium his opponents had withdrawn. What then was the priesthood he demanded to be restored? Badian suggests the pontificate and that Sulla was one of the very few during the Republic who held both major priesthoods. Cf A. Keaveney, AJAR 7, 150ff. (Broughton MRR III)
  • Augur? 82 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Dictator Legibus Faciendis Et Rei Publicae Constituendae Causa 81 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • OGIS 441; Act. Tr., Degrassi 84f., 563; see 82, Dictator. Within this year Sulla celebrated his triumph over Mithridates (Cic. Leg. Man. 8; Act. Tr.; Val. Max. 2.8.7; Plin. NH 33.16; Plut. Sull. 34; App. BC 1.101; Eutrop. -5.9; cf. Grueber, CRRBM 2.461f.; Inser. Ital. 13.3.18-C1L12.1, p. 196), and probably carried through the major portion of his administrative and constitutional reforms: 1. The additions of 300 persons from the knights to the depleted Senate (Sall. Cat. 37.6; Dion. Hal. 5.77.4; App. BC 1.100; Liv. Per. 89; cf. Hill, CQ 26 [1932] 170ff.), and the requirement of admittance to the Senate through the quaestorship (Tac. Ann. 11.22); 2. Increase of the number of Quaestors to 20 (Tac. Ann. 11.22; CIL 12.2.587), and of the Praetors to eight (Vell. 2.89.3; Dio 42.51.3; 53.32.2; Pomponius in Dig. 1.2.2.32; cf. Cic. ND 3.74; Cluent. 147; and see Mommsen, Str. 2.200-202, and 527f.; see below, on the courts); 3. The order, interval, and probable age limits for the quaestorship, praetorship, and consulship, with provision against repetition of the consulship within ten years (Cic. Phil. 11.11; App. BC 1.100-101; cf. Cic. Leg. Man. 62; Leg. 3.9; Phil. 5.47; Caes. BC 1.32; Liv. 7.42.2; 10.13.8; see Mommsen, Str. 1.567-572); 4. The tribunician veto was limited, the right to initiate legislation removed, and also the right to hold further office (Cic. Leg. 3.22; Verr. 2.1.155, cf. 2.1.122; Cluent. 110; Caes. BC 1.5, and 7.3; Sall. Hist. 3.48.8 and 12M; Dion. Hal. 5.77.4; Vell. 2.30.4; Ascon. 67, 78, 81C; Plut. Caes. 4.2; Suet. Iul. 5; App. BC 1.100; 2.29; Liv. Per. 89; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.11; cf. Cic. Verr. 2.1.122; Tull. 38; Ps.Ascon. 255 Stangl); 5. Various laws relating to maiestas, in particular those intended to restrain provincial governors (Cic. Pis. 50; Fam. 3.6.3 and 6, and 10.6, and 11.2; Ascon. 59, 60, 62C; cf. Auct. Ad Herenn. 2.17; Cic. Cluent. 97 and 99; QF 3.2.3; Fam. 1.9.25; Plut. Luc. 35.9; and see 55, Promagistrates, on Gabinius); 6. The reform of the courts, which included the establishment of seven standing quaestiones and the restoration of the juries to the senators (Cic. Verr. 1.37 and 47-49; 2.2.77; Cluent. 55; Vell. 2.32.3; Tac. Ann. 11.22; Ps.-Ascon. 189, 218, and 221 Stangl; Schol. Gron. 326 Stangl; Dig. 1.2.2.32; on the q. de repetundis, see Cic. Rab. Post. 9 and 11; Cluent. 104; de sicariis et veneficis, C;.c. Clueit. 147-148 and 151-157; Instit. 4.4.8, and 18.5-6; Dig. 48.1.1, and 8.1-17; Paul. Sent. 5.23, FIRA 2.408-410; C. Theod. 9.14; Cod. 9.16; de falsis, Cic. Verr. 2.1.108; ND 3.74; Suet. Aug. 33; Ps.-Ascon. 248 Stangl; Instit. 4.18.7; Dig. 48. 1.1, and 10.1-33; Paul. Sent. 5.25, FIRA 2.410-412; C. Theod. 9.19; ,Cod. 9.22; de peculatu, Cic. ND 3.74; Mur. 42; cf. Cluent. 147; Verr. 1.39; 2.1.11; 2.2.83; de ambitu, Cic. Cluent. 147; Schol. Bob. 78 Stangl); 7. Increase of colleges of pontiffs and augurs to 15 members each, and restoration of the practice of co-optation (Liv. Per. 89; Dio 37.37.1; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.11; Ps.-Ascon. 188 Stangl; cf. Cic. Leg. Agr. 2.18; Serv. Ad Aen. 6.73; Tac. Ann. 6.12); 8. Laws to regulate coinage and sumptuary matters (Gell. 2.24.11; Macrob. Sat. 3.17.11; cf. Plut. Sull. 35.3; Comp. Lys. and Sull. 3.4); 9. Abolition of corn doles (Sall. Hist. 1.55.11M; cf. Gran. Lic. 43B); 10. Laws depriving hostile towns and individuals of citizenship (Cic. Caec. 95 and 102, cf. 18; Dom. 79; Leg. Agr. 2.78; 3.5; cf. Sall. Hist. 1.55.6M; Dion. Hal. 8.80.2; Liv. Per. 89; App. BC 1.100; Ps.-Ascon. 189 Stangl). On his proscriptions, see 82, Promagistrates; and on his colonies, see T. Frank, ESAR 1.220f.; and RE s. v. "Colonia." (Broughton MRR II)
  • Curator Restituendi Capitolii? 81 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Augur 81 to 78 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Triumphator 81 (Rich 2014) Expand
    • Triumph de rege Mithridate. MRR II.74, Itgenshorst no. 243, Rich no. 243. (Rich 2014)
  • Consul 80 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • SIG³ 747, line 53; CIL 12 .2.893; Cic. Verr. 2.1.130; Fast. Cap., Degrassi 54f., 130, 484f. (Sulla's name entire; Q. Ca[ ---- 1); App. BC 1. 103; Gell. 15.28.3; Chr. 354 (Sulla et Pio); Fast. Hyd. (Sulla et Metello Pio); Chr. Pasc.; Cassiod.; on Sulla, IGRP 4.943; Sall. Hist. 2.21M; and on Metellus, Cic. Planc. 69; Val. Max. 5.2.7. (Broughton MRR II)
  • Curator Restituendi Capitolii 80 to 78 (Rüpke 2005)
  • Dictator Legibus Faciendis Et Rei Publicae Constituendae Causa? 80 (Broughton MRR II) Expand
    • 1 A number of Sulla's constitutional reforms may not have been completed until this year. Certainly military action continued at Nola (Liv. Per. 89) and at Volaterrae (Gran. Lic. 39 B), and much of his colonization should probably be assigned to this year (Liv. Per. 89). (Broughton MRR II)
    • Cic. Rosc. Amer. 131. See 82, and 81, Dictator. (Broughton MRR II)
    • He resigned the dictatorship after the election of the Consuls for 78, and offered to submit his acts for examination (Plut. Sull. 34.3; Suet. Iul. 77; App. BC 1.3, and 103-104; Auct. Vir. Ill. 75.12; Oros. 5.22.1). (Broughton MRR II)

< Back to results