From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 (16 page)

In 79 Sulla, no longer consul, resigned his dictatorship (now, if not earlier) and became a private citizen. He soon retired to his country estate in Campania, where he spent the rest of his life with Valeria, a young divorcée whom he married; there he wrote his autobiography, hunted, fished and, according to his enemies, indulged in less reputable pleasures. When against his wishes Aemilius Lepidus was elected consul for 78, Sulla did not bestir himself. He died aged sixty in 78 and the public funeral accorded to him in Rome was of unparalleled magnificence. His epitaph recorded that no friend ever surpassed him in kindness, and no enemy in ill-doing.

His abdication has puzzled posterity: Julius Caesar is alleged to have said that Sulla did not know his political ABC: ‘Sullam nescisse litteras qui dictaturam deposuerit’. One solution offered by a modern historian is that Sulla’s action was forced on him: he really hoped to become monarch, and thus he lost the support of Pompey, the Metelli and the rest of the nobility, who combined against him and forced him into retirement since he was unwilling to appeal to arms again.
⁴⁶
This view, which well illustrates that Sulla was neither a mere reactionary nor at first a mere tool of the nobles and that the trend of events was carrying Rome towards autocratic rule, cannot be accepted. It may be that there is a tendency to regard events, with Caesar, too exclusively in the light of later history: to some of Sulla’s contemporaries his retirement may have seemed tardy rather than premature. It is improbable that he saw a solution to Rome’s problems in monarchy: it required thirty years more of political unrest and military menace to make that answer practical and another twenty to make it palatable. The pill was too bitter for a sickening but still strong patient to swallow voluntarily; later it was sugared by Augustus.

Sulla’s solution was apparently to give the Senate another chance and to make the government more effective by curbing those forces that threatened it: tribunes, censors and magistrates, especially the army commanders. He realized that the People, meeting in the Concilium Plebis, was an unrepresentative and irresponsible body unworthy to govern, but he largely failed to infuse a new sense of responsibility into the Senate. Nor did he make an effective attempt fully to utilize the talent of the new citizens from the
Italian municipalities. Above all, arrangements to control the use or abuse of proconsular
imperium
, the threat from which his own career had so nakedly demonstrated, were clearly inadequate against men of determined ambition. It would have required, however, more prescience than Sulla or perhaps any of his contemporaries possessed to have foreseen that within ten years two of his own lieutenants, backed by military force, would have overthrown his constitution. He may well have thought that he had made reasonable and efficient arrangements which could be worked by men of good will. If the senatorial nobility should fail Rome, that was their responsibility: Sulla probably cynically shrugged his shoulders and with that cool and ruthless detachment that had not deserted him in war or peace, he resolved to enjoy in felicity the remaining span of life that fate should allow to him.

Any hope that Sulla’s settlement after the grim years of civil war might usher in a period of tranquillity was rudely shattered by the ambitions of M. Aemilius Lepidus. This noble, who had rallied against Saturninus (probably his father-in-law) in 100, soon afterwards abandoned the Optimate cause. He enriched himself during Sulla’s proscriptions and his own propraetorship in Sicily (80). In 79 he stood for the consulship, supported by Pompey and advocating a policy hostile to Sulla’s constitution. As Sulla did not trouble to intervene, he was elected for 78, but with a conservative colleague, Q. Lutatius Catulus, son of the consul of 102.
²
His programme included proposals to renew the sale of cheap corn, to give back confiscated lands to the dispossessed, to recall the Marian exiles, and to restore its old powers to the tribunate.
³

He soon found a chance to promote trouble. Some dispossessed farmers at Faesulae in Etruria had attacked the Sullan colonists. Both consuls were sent there, but Lepidus soon fell out with Catulus, and the Senate made them both swear to avoid civil war. Whether or not Lepidus made a demonstration march on Rome now, he managed to secure Transalpine and probably Cisalpine Gaul as his province. His legate, M. Iunius Brutus, began to raise troops for him in Cisalpina where Lepidus had strong family connexions. When early in 77 Lepidus was reported to be marching on Rome, L. Marcius Philippus (
cos.
91) persuaded the Senate to pass the
senatus consultum ultimum
and to declare him a public enemy. Catulus, as proconsul, met and repelled Lepidus at the Mulvian Bridge, while Pompey, to whom the Senate had rashly given a special grant of propraetorian
imperium
, went north against Brutus,
whom he besieged in Mutina; after Brutus had surrendered, Pompey had him put to death, perhaps being uncertain whether to treat him as a citizen or enemy. Pompey then defeated Lepidus at Cosa in Etruria. Lepidus managed to slip away to Sardinia, but he soon died, and the survivors of his army, led by Perperna, joined Sertorius in Spain.

Lepidus’ rising had been crushed without much difficulty, but not without granting a special command to a young man who had held no magistracy, an action of the kind that Sulla had wished to make impossible. Any senators who began to feel that in making this appointment they had unwisely given way to nervous fears, soon had further cause to regret their action. When ordered by Catulus to disband his army, Pompey delayed and suggested that he should be sent to help Metellus in his struggle against Sertorius in Spain. The Senate capitulated, and Pompey was given a proconsular command which made him a colleague, not a legate, of Metellus: Philippus wrily observed that Pompey was being sent ‘non pro consule, sed pro consulibus’. The reason for the Senate’s action is not clear. It is said that no senator was willing to go to Spain, and the consuls of 77 possibly hesitated either on grounds of military inexperience or for political reasons (they may not have wished to act against Sulla’s intentions, but significantly they were a Lepidus and a Brutus). But even if there was a real lack of competent generals, to invest a young man who was not yet even a senator with proconsular
imperium
was a disastrous blow to Sulla’s intentions, and in the event proved suicidal to the Senate that sanctioned the grant.

Action was certainly demanded in Spain, where Sertorius had built up a widespread and independent power. This Sabine-born leader was a man of remarkable ability who had served under Marius against the northern barbarians (102–1), under Didius against the Celtiberians (95), and in the Social War when he lost an eye. Thwarted by Sulla in an attempt to win the tribunate in 88, Sertorius turned to the Marians. In 87 he fled and returned with Cinna, defeating Strabo and putting an end to Marius’ massacres. As praetor in 83 he helped the consuls against Sulla, and then withdrew to Etruria and from there went to his province of Hither Spain. During these years of civil war he had shown great moderation: ‘inter arma civilia aequi bonique famam petit’ (Sallust).

In Spain he began to win the support of the natives and to build up an army and ships, until Sulla sent two legions against him under Annius Luscus, who forced him out of the peninsula (81). With his followers Sertorius sailed out into the Atlantic and thought of settling first in the Islands of the Blessed (Madeira or Canaries) and then in Tingis (Tangier). Envoys from Lusitania,
however, begged him to return to Spain to help them against Rome. This he did. His sympathetic approach to the Spaniards, combined with a skilful exploitation of their superstitions (he had a white fawn that was alleged to reveal the future), enabled him to build up a formidable army with which he defeated Fufidius the governor of Further Spain in 80. In undertaking this resistance and appealing to the Romans and Italians in Spain (the Hispanienses), he claimed to be fighting against Sulla’s illegal government in Rome, not against Rome itself. Indeed to his Roman supporters he was no rebel, but a truer representative of Rome.

As the threat in Spain increased, the government in Rome decided to send out Sulla’s colleague in the consulship of 80, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, as governor of Further Spain. In an attempt to reduce, the south-west, Metellus established headquarters at Metellinum (modern Medellin) from which he struck out in different directions: northwards to Castra Caecilia (modern Carceres, near which a camp of his still survives), westwards to Dipo and Caeciliana (near Lisbon), and south-west to attack Lacobriga (near Cape Saint Vincent) where he was thwarted by Sertorius (79–8). Meantime Sertorius’ lieutenant Hirtuleius had defeated the governor of Nearer Spain, Domitius Calvinus, at Consabura (south of Toledo) and then crossed the Ebro to defeat the governor of Narbonese Gaul who was coming to help his colleagues. In 77 Sertorius advanced through central Spain to the middle Ebro where he was joined by Perperna, who brought from Sardinia the remains of Lepidus’ army and built up a force of some 20,000 men. Not far away, at Osca, Sertorius set up a school for the sons of Celtiberian chiefs, who thus showed their enthusiasm for his cause and at the same time unintentionally provided him with hostages. On the Mediterranean coast, of which he controlled the greater part, he was able to get in touch with the pirates and co-operate with them. Thus in some four years he had defeated or held in check all the Roman forces which had been sent against him and he had built up a really formidable power which embraced the greater part of the peninsula. Well might the Senate fear that a second Hannibal might come from Spain, and decide that at all cost a competent general must be sent to help Metellus, even if it meant giving in to young Pompey’s claims. A few years earlier Pompey is alleged to have told Sulla, who was opposing his request for a triumph, that more men worship the rising than the setting sun. The Senate, now blinded by his audacity, failed to see the political consequences of their concession.

On his arrival in Spain in 76 Pompey’s first objective was to win control of the eastern coast road, especially the area around Valentia. He forced his way down as far as Saguntum, sweeping aside Sertorius’ lieutenants, but Sertorius himself, who was in a reserve position on the upper Ebro, came down to the coast and thrust Pompey back northwards over the Ebro. Meantime, however, in the south Sertorius’ lieutenant Hirtuleius foolishly got involved in a battle
with Metellus at Italica and was defeated. It was perhaps during the following winter (76/5) that Sertorius negotiated with Mithridates for help: in return for money and ships he would recognize the king’s claims to Bithynia and Cappadocia, but scarcely to the Roman province of Asia as the tradition hostile to Sertorius asserts. In fact the treaty had little practical result, except that knowledge of Mithridates’ support would increase Sertorius’ prestige, not least with the pirates, just as it would alienate sympathy in Italy.

The next year, 75, was critical. Pompey again reached the area of Valentia, but was checked on the Sucro by Sertorius. However, a decisive battle was fought at Segovia, in central Spain, where Metellus again defeated Hirtuleius and was enabled to join Pompey. Near Saguntum Sertorius then fought an even engagement against their united forces, and they withdrew slowly to the Pyrenees for the winter. Pompey was in fact getting desperately short of supplies and warned the Senate in a despatch that unless he received reinforcements the whole war might sweep into Italy itself. He obtained two legions and in 74 turned away from the coast to attack the highlands of Celtiberia, whence Sertorius drew much of his strength; he met with varying fortune, including a joint defeat with Metellus at Calagurris. But Sertorius’ forces were gradually declining: his Spanish allies were beginning to tire and it is alleged that his own character was degenerating under the strain and that he was becoming more cruel. However that may be, Perperna turned against him and treacherously murdered him in 72. This usurpation of leadership did Perperna little good, since he was quickly defeated and killed by Pompey, who brought the war to an end by 71. His settlement was liberal and humane. By virtue of a consular law of 72 (
lex Gellia-Cornelia
) he granted Roman citizenship to many Spaniards, including Balbus of Gades, who had supported the Roman cause; and instead of massacring some of the obstinate, he transferred them to a new settlement north of the Pyrenees, Lugdunum Convenarum.

Though Sertorius is sometimes depicted in too romantic a light, he was certainly one of Rome’s greatest sons. His military genius is undisputed: he gave to the guerilla warfare, which he imposed on his opponents and which the nature of the country demanded, a leadership and understanding seldom equalled. Self-restrained and humane, he appreciated the needs of the provincials and won their loyalty, as had Scipio Africanus earlier. Had he been able to devote his gifts to peace rather than to war, he might have served his country with great distinction. It may be that if the Senate had had the foresight to attempt to negotiate with him after the death of Sulla, his personal enemy, instead of raising up Pompey against him, a reconciliation might have been achieved. But though Sertorius’ military genius did not ultimately prevail against the oligarchical government in Rome, it nevertheless by a tragic paradox indirectly created the stepping-stone by means of which Pompey gained a political ascendancy that rested on military power and
thus overthrew Sulla’s constitution. The influence of the army commanders now dominated Roman life.

The Senate, whose hand Sulla had tried to strengthen, had successfully coped with Lepidus and by utilizing Pompey had taken steps to suppress Sertorius, but as the seventies advanced its difficulties increased and its weakness became more apparent. Foreign affairs also occasioned increasing anxiety. Further efforts which had to be made against the pirates, were tolerably successful at first (78–75), but less effective later (74–72). In Macedonia the governors were kept busy repelling the Thracian tribes that attacked the frontiers (78–74) until M. Terentius Varro, brother of Lucullus, advanced to the Danube, defeating the Bessi and Dardani and even plundering the Greek cities on the western coast of the Black Sea. Rome also took action in Cyrene, which had been bequeathed to her on the death of its ruler in 96: for over twenty years she had been content to leave the government in the hands of the local Greek cities, but in 74 as part of her drive against the pirates she decided to annex Cyrene as a province.
⁵
But the greatest upheaval was in the East. The king of Bithynia died in 75/4 and bequeathed his kingdom to Rome. The Senate decided to accept, although this would obviously upset the status quo and balance of power in Asia. Mithridates was quick to act. He advanced into Bithynia, and Rome had a Third Mithridatic War on her hands. This war and the campaigns against the pirates, which are discussed more fully below, seriously increased the problems with which the Senate had to wrestle at this time.

At home also the Senate ran into stormy weather, though it is not now easy to distinguish the cross-current of feelings and pressures that determined its policy. Besides the interests of the Optimates, Populares and Equites, there had now been injected into the State a large body of new citizens, the enfranchised Italians, some of whom must have been exerting fresh influences, even if we cannot now easily detect or analyse them. Some members of the municipal aristocracies entered the Roman Senate and even if they were typified by the ‘homo novus parvusque senator’, they will have contributed their quota.

The main political issue was the question of the restoration of the powers of the tribunes. When a tribune of 76, Cn. Sicinius, began to agitate for this, he was checked by one of the consuls, but a successor in 75, Q. Opimius, kept up the pressure. This was followed by a remarkable success: one of the consuls, C. Aurelius Cotta, who had been a friend of the younger Drusus, took up the cause and carried a measure which allowed tribunes to hold further office. If the Senate was in a more liberal mood, this was only
passing: in 74, although this law of Cotta was allowed to stand, another of his measures was repealed and Opimius was prosecuted for misuse of his veto. The agitation for complete restoration of tribunes’ powers was continued by L. Quinctius in 74 and the annalist C. Licinius Macer in 73.

Quinctius was also active in another field where the conduct of senators was being discredited: the law-courts. He defended Oppianicus who was accused of poisoning his step-son A. Cluentius; the bribery at the trial was scandalous and did much to bring the senatorial juries into disrepute (after the trial Quinctius in fact secured the condemnation of the
iudex quaestionis
and of one of the jurors).
⁶
At two other trials a young nobleman, who had just returned from serving in the East and had wisely kept clear of the revolt of Lepidus, C. Iulius Caesar, gained some publicity. In 77 he unsuccessfully prosecuted Dolabella, proconsul of Macedonia, on a charge of extortion, and in 76 he was equally unsuccessful in his prosecution of an agent of Sulla, C. Antonius Hybrida (later consul in 63) on a charge of plundering some Greeks. A certain Terentius Varro was accused twice (in 75 and 74) of extortion in Asia: his acquittal, secured with the help of the oratory of Hortensius and marked ballots, added a further scandal to the series, which exposed the unscrupulousness of some senators in the provinces as well as the corruption of senatorial juries at home.

Foreign affairs led to fresh appointments of significance. The new struggle against Mithridates meant that the consuls of 74 were sent to the East: M. Aurelius Cotta was assigned to Bithynia, while his colleague L. Licinius Lucullus, by luck and intrigue, secured Cilicia, the command against Mithridates and probably also the province of Asia. If Sulla had hoped that consuls would remain in Italy and without armies (p. 70), his expectations did not long outlive him. Worse still, M. Antonius (later Creticus) was invested by the Senate with a special proconsular
imperium infinitum
to deal with the pirates (74).
⁷
In 73 the consuls carried a corn law (
lex Terentia Cassia frumentaria
): the demands of war and the activities of the pirates had been making corn scarce and expensive. This law aimed at speeding up the delivery of corn from Sicily and prescribed the distribution of five
modii
a month to perhaps 40,000 recipients at the Gracchan price of 6 1/3
asses
a
modius
.
⁸
In the following year the situation abroad was improving: Sertorius was murdered, Mithridates was driven out of Pontus, and the position beyond the frontiers of Macedonia was better. But in Italy matters were far worse: the slave revolt of Spartacus (see below), which had broken out in 73, had assumed such alarming proportions that a special proconsular command was entrusted to Crassus, who had probably held a praetorship in 73. Thus a proconsul was in command of an army in Italy itself, the very thing that Sulla had hoped to prevent at all costs. Worse still for the Senate, in 71 a second army arrived in Italy, that of Pompey back from Spain after his victory over the Sertorians. But
before this double threat to the Sullan constitution and the Senate’s predominance is discussed, the fate of Spartacus must be considered.