stuff about sulla

Sulla and the Monuments: Studies in His Public PersonaAuthor(s): Christopher S. MackaySource: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 49, H. 2 (2nd Qtr., 2000), pp. 161-210Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4436575 .Accessed: 29/04/2014 09:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.199.120.65 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:29:36 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SULLA AND THE MONUMENTS: STUDIES IN HIS PUBLIC PERSONA

It is a commonplace in contemporary historiography that Sulla is the pivotal figure in the fall of the Roman Republic.* One historiographical tradition in antiquity, it is true, began the story of the demise of the Republic with the bloodshed introduced into Roman politics with the murder of Ti. Gracchus in 133.1 While it is true that this event set a bad precedent, it did not have fatal consequences. The career of L. Sulla, on the other hand, directly set the stage for the events that would necessitate the replacement of the oligarchical govern- ment of the Republic with the autocracy of the Empire. The violence directed against the Gracchi and Saturninus and Glaucia merely represented the suppres- sion of troublesome political factions by other, opposed factions. Sulla, on the other hand, used the power of his army to further his own position, first by quashing the laws of P. Sulpicius Rufus and then by returning victorious from the east to install himself in unrestricted power in the years 83-82. The precedent, as is well known, proved irresistible.2 In 49, Pompey thought he would return from the east like Sulla, and Caesar ultimately installed himself in a similar position to Sulla's, paying the price when he did not follow Sulla's precedent in laying down his power.3 It was left to Caesar's heir to put back in the bottle the genie released by Sulla, taking into his own hands all military power and at the same time retaining the form of the Republic while gutting it of its meaning. Sulla is thus the man who was to unleash the forces that would result in the fall of the Roman Republic. This paper concerns several interrelat- ed aspects of Sulla's public persona. Specifically, the issues discussed here revolve around his public celebration of his victory over Mithridates's general Archelaus at Chaeronea in 86. The recent discovery of a monument there and a discussion of the coinage he issued upon his return have raised questions about how he wished this victory to be viewed and how he portrayed himself before and after his return. The paper falls into four sections. First, as background I

* In addition to the standard abbreviations, RRC signifies M. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (1974).

1 App. BC 1.4, Plut. Ti. Grac. 20.1, Velleius Paterculus 2.3.3. 2 P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura thought that he would be another Sulla (Cic. in Cat. 3.9, Sall.

BC 47.2, Plut. Cic. 17.4, App. BC 2.4). Syme of course famously noted that Sulla "could not abolish his own example" (Roman Revolution [19601 17).

3 See n. 132 for Pompey emulating Sulla. The anecdote that Caesar considered that Sulla did not know his ABCs because he laid down his power, whether true or not, is indicative of the ultimate logic of Sulla's example.

Historia, Band XLIX/2 (2000) ? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart


162 CHRISTOPHER S. MACKAY

examine the controversy surrounding a monument erected in Rome on Sulla's behalf in the late 90s. This illustrates how important the physical commemoration of victory was for a Roman politician and also the role played by such commemoration in Sulla's rivalry with Marius. Second, the newly found inscription from Chaeronea, which has been thought to be a victory trophy of Sulla himself, but on closer inspection turns out to be a private commemoration of two Greek participants in that battle. Third comes a controversial coin issued at the time of Sulla's return, which proclaims his second acclamation as imperator. There has been much dispute as to the date of the coin's issuance and the significance of the coin type. I argue that the coin was issued soon after his victory at the Porta Collina, and that the mention of the acclamation refers to the battle at Chaeronea and not to the battle outside the Porta Collina. Finally, I discuss Sulla's choice of signet ring in his final years, which seems to refer symbolically to the three major campaigns of his lifetime. Examination of these issues will not only add to our knowledge of the monuments and coinage in question but will also heighten our understanding of the contemporary signifi- cation of his victory. Thus we may gain a better understanding of the position of the 'forerunner' of the Caesars.

I) Bocchus's Monument

Sulla seems to have entered into a kind of monumental rivalry with Marius about trophies. The Romans had only recently adopted the Greek custom of erecting trophies to commemorate military victories. The first time Roman generals raised such a monument was when Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus and Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus defeated numerous tribes in Gaul in 121.4 As we shall soon see, Marius raised two such monuments in Rome, one commemorating his victory over Jugurtha, the other commemorating that over the Cimbri and Teutoni. It is in connection with the former that Sulla began his competition with Marius. In fact, Plutarch, who is our source for this anecdote, connects it directly with the rivalry between the two which was to have such dire consequences for the Roman state.

i1 .ikv-ot lpo; Maptov av-r@ orakt; a&veppi4ero icatvv f n0env Xaloi3a Tilv B6KXo1 4tkotongtiav, o; t6v T? 68j.ov 'a'a Oepane'iwv ?v WPg 1Ca

iAkXq Xapt46jievo; avciOpcc Niica; ?v Kantvokico tponatooopou; Kai nap' ac-akl; Xpaolv 'loyopOav v6' Cautoi 1i3kXa napa&t6Bu>vov. ')

4 Florus 1.37.6. There is some uncertainty as to the exact significance of this claim, since there is attestation of Roman use of the iconography of the trophy from the period before the erection of the monument in 121; see G.C. Picard, Les trophies romains (1957) 101- 36 for the debate about Florus's claim that the first trophy was erected in 121, and 137-47 for earlier attestation of Roman trophies.


Sulla and the Monuments: Studies in his Public Persona 163

toi Mapiou PappOgoxgEvou ica Kaatpiv ?7rt%etpoiv-Toq, ETEpov 8E agivV TCV T vat KTi; no6XEo ocov ov5itw 8taiceKa4t vT1(m' a4xtv, o utgaXtuco6; itX?io ... 'Mv aatv ?1c?xev. (Plut. Sulla 6.1-2)

?1T? icait BO6cxo; ... ?atriFv ?-v KacxicoXiq NiKa; tpo1fo4opou; icat nap' ac'rcai; ?v e?iicot xpUaait 'IouyoU`pOav ?yXeFtpto6evov (nro awtoi Xx)XXa, TOUTO eE4?atflaeV Opy13 icat tXovetKi' Map.ov, xS EvXXa 7tEpSLmO)VtO Eti F-au)OV Tta Spya, Kat napeacrioczvEtEo piq3 ta 6va0i jtara icatapadEtv. avte4ntXoveiKet 6? DvXXa;, Ka't ti v atdatv 6oov o0Vo1 4Epo-

9viiv Eri; ?aov a'iteaXev 6 cauRgatKic; n6?Ego; ... (Plut. Mar. 32.2-3) King Bocchus of Mauritania erected as a dedication on the Capitol a

monument which portrayed Jugurtha being handed over to Sulla by Bocchus beside a golden trophy - bearing images of Victory. Such a representation clearly legitimized Sulla's contention that even if Marius was technically in control, it was Sulla himself who ended the war against Jugurtha when he received Jugurtha from Bocchus.5 The monument was all the more provocative in that Marius's own monument to his defeat of Jugurtha was likewise on the Capitol.6

According to Plutarch, the dedication was a gift both to the Roman People and to Sulla. This obscures the technical reality. The dedication was no doubt made directly on behalf of the Roman People, permission to make it having been granted by the senate.7 It was in reality a compliment to Sulla. Plutarch indicates that the dispute over the monument must have taken place in late 91 or even early 90, since it was overshadowed by the outbreak of the Social War following the assassination of M. Livius Drusus in the fall of 91. Whatever the date of his propraetorship, Sulla was looking forward to running for the consulship after his success in Cilicia, and Bocchus would have been quite willing to help the political career of a man who stood a good chance of being returned as consul.8 As for offending the aged Marius, that would not have been a very weighty counterconsideration. At this time Marius was clearly a man of yester- day. Who could have foreseen his remarkable and unfortunate return to the political stage? According to Plutarch the dispute took place between Marius, who tried to have the dedication removed, and an unspecified group of ETcpOI,

5 The event was significant enough in Sulla's sense of himself that he had the scene engraved on his signet ring (see n. 155).

6 Plut. Caes. 6.1 quoted below p. 165. 7 E. Badian, Lucius Sulla. The Deadly Reformer (1970) 12 n. 33. 8 T. Corey Brennan ("Sulla's Career in the Nineties: Some Reconsiderations," Klio 22

[1992] 103-158) 137 refutes the argument of P.F. Cagniart ("L. Cornelius Sulla in the Nineties: a Reassessment," Latomus 50 [1991] 285-303) 293-95 that Sulla was a political nonentity in the late 90s and only became a plausible candidate for the consulship after his successes during the Social War. Brennan 156 demonstrates that the erection of the monument in 91 was part of Sulla's early campaign for the consulship; so also Badian (see preceding note) 11-12.



who tried to protect Sulla. The phrasing seems to indicate that Sulla did not directly take part in the dispute. It seems reasonable to assume that those who opposed the removal were those in the senate who had approved the erection in the first place.

Plutarch does not tell us what became of the dispute. If it was interrupted by the outbreak of the Social War, then presumably the monument remained on the Capitol. If so, it is hard to believe that it was not removed once Marius regained control of the city after Sulla's seizure of it and departure for the East.9 At any rate, such an act would explain Sulla's vindictiveness in connection with Marius' own trophies.

For, as has already been mentioned, Marius had two trophies in the city.10 We know from Plutarch that one was on the Capitol and commemorated the victory over the Cimbri and Teutoni."1 Hence the one not on the Capitol commemorated the war in Africa. This monument was near the domus Aelio- rum and in the area of it was a templum Febris.'2 It was also next to Marius's temple of Honos and Virtus.13 We know in some detail of the Capitoline

9 Note Plutarch's statement (Mar. 32.3) that Marius was ready to use force to pull down the offending monument.

10 That there were two is directly attested by Valerius Maximus 6.9.14: cuius (sc. Marii) bina tropaea in urbe spectantur; cf. Suet. Div. lul. 11: tropaea Gai Mari de lugurtha deque Cimbris atque Teutonis where the repetition of the preposition indicates a second monument. Velleius Paterculus 2.43.4 vaguely mentions restituta in aedilitate adversante quidem nobilitate monumenta C. Marii.

I I This monument is also mentioned in Prop. 3.1 1.45-46. 12 Valerius Maximus informs us that there were two temples of Febris, quorum ... alterum in

area Marianorum monumentorum ... extat ... (2.5.6) and he tells us that there were at one particular moment sixteen Aelii, quibus una domuncula erat eodem loci quo nunc sunt Mariana monumenta (4.4.8).

13 The terminology used by the Romans to describe the temple and the nearby monument is somewhat confusing and has caused difficulties for scholarly interpretation. On numerous occasions Cicero refers to the temple, in which the senate passed its decree in 57 proposing his recall from exile, as the monumentum Marii (de div. 1.59, 2.136, 140, Sest. 116, Planc. 78. The Schol. Bob. on the pro Plancio passage (166 St.) explains the monumentum Marii as his temple to Honos and Virtus (in templo scilicet Honoris et Virtutis) (Valerius Maximus 1.7.5 garbles this as the aedes lovis [sic!] Mariana). Vitruvi- us mentions (3.2.5) a certain kind of temple quemadmodum est ... ad Mariana Honoris et Virtutis sine postico a Muciofacta. Herefacta modifies an understood aedes (as shown in 3.2.7), upon which depends the genitive Honoris et Virtutis. Hence the temple is ad Mariana (cf. in porticu Metelli earlier in the same clause). The neuter plural noun understood here with Mariana can hardly be anything other than monumenta, the same plural having been used of one monument by Valerius Maximus (see preceding note). Note that his use [n. 101 of the distributive ordinal bina with tropaea in place of the normal ordinal demonstrates that he considered that word to be among the pluralia tantum. Presumably the same applies to the monumenta Mariana, which must have been a complicated monument erected near his temple. Since the monument on the Capitol



dedication from an incident in the early career of C. Julius Caesar.14 In his aedileship, Caesar restored the monument, which had suffered at the hands of Sulla, as Plutarch informs us.

8u6tv 6 oua&v ev Ti noXket artaeov, ti; ev a&nco XXka pya 8uvagvi;, ti; 86e Maptavii;, ii t're Kcta1t?t ate'ainacro, icogt8i taratvaz

npadtTouaa, TavQiTv avappcoat icai KpoayayeaOat PoVuX6p.?vo;, ?v rad; cyopavogticai; 4tXo'rtiat; aiiqqv Exotvaat; e'uc6va; ?not'iaaro Mapiou xcpt6a Kcai NiKca; rpoirat0o6pou;, &a O?pv vUK-ir; ei; TO Katr(OAtov tav MaEv. aga 8' lgEpq roi OF-eacagvou; gapagaivov'a davEa Xp-5aq

icat rpX?vij Co;lcs-oaaJlEva iept'T(65 (St6i5xov 5s ypa cn r& Kipt- Kca catopO(oJata) O6po; ?CXe S%? ; o'6Xgin 'rovi; dvatv'ro; (oiu y'ap ijv ad&Xo;) raXUs & iepttuOV O X6yo; "Opot4? invra; &vOp6noui; inp; 'rj v 0irtv. aXX' oi p_iv EOP6cov npavvi&a noXtret'eaOat Kaitapa, vogot; cat

oygaczai Kcaropwopuygva; cnavtoardvra -tga;, Kat zoviro npav nt' rov 8fiiov elvat npo[taXarr6gevov, si F-xrtOdaevrac rcti; OoXtrtgTiat; 6nr' auxrou Kcat 6i(ot nai4Etv totauta KaCt 1catvo-ogLtv. oi 5e Maptavot napaOappivvavrs; auto6;, iuV S?tTE Oavugaa-rol x aoit &Se4t valoav ?Eai4- v1l Kca Kppt(k) KatetXoV T'o KantsXov t oXoI; 6? Kcait 5acpua 'iv Mapiov 0eoJteVOt; 6Onv 954 #jboviq; ?6opev Kai gya; ilv o Katoap eycogtLot; atp6pevo;, co; dvrt avrvrow I'ito; il 6 a6vinp -n; Mapiou auyyF-vcia; (Caes. 6.1-5) First, we should note the events of the past. Sulla had torn apart and buried

the monument.15 Why such treatment? Trophies were dedications to the gods,

commemorated the victory over the northern tribesmen, the monumenta Mariana near his temple of Honos and Virtus commemorated his defeat of Jugurtha. Many years ago, L. Richardson, Jr., "Honoris et Virtutis and the Sacra Via," AJA 82 (1978) 240-46 argued (243) that "In the precinct [of the temple of Honos and Virtus] apparently were ranged trophies of the arms taken from Jugurtha, the Teutones and the Cimbri, for these were dismantled by Sulla, but seemingly without damage to the building and were reerected by Julius Caesar on the Capitoline." In his New Topographical Dictionary of Rome (1992) 402, Richardson apparently maintains this interpretation, overtly rejecting Valerius Max- imus's attestation of two monuments as a mistake. Presumably the plural monumenta has led to this peculiar notion that monuments to both campaigns had stood in the vicinity of the temple of Honos and Virtus and then been re-erected by Caesar on the Capitol. Richardson also associates the monumenta near the temple with the famous Gaul painted on the scutum Marianum (Cic. de orat. 2.266, Pliny NH 32.25, Quint. inst. 6.3.38), but that is a completely different matter.

14 In the standard work on the subject of Roman trophies, Picard (n. 4) 161 bizarrely says "nous ignorons en quoi consistaient ces monuments."

15 We know of Sulla's taking apart of the monument from Suetonius's terse notice: tropaea Gai Mari de lugurtha deque Cimbris atque Teutonis olim a Sulla disiecta restituit ... (Suet. Div. Jul. 11). This is presumably what is meant by Dio's attributing to the opponents of Caesar's deed the expression v6iotq Kcai 86-ypaat catopa)puygEvac rqtai.



and as such any attempt to destroy them would be sacrilegious. 16 When after the battle of Zela Caesar came across an offensive trophy set up by Mithridates Eupator in memory of his victory in 67 over C. Valerius Triarius, he did not throw the monument down, but set up his own as a kind of counterbalance.'7 Sulla, being at least as pious a soul as Caesar, likewise respected the sanctity of Marius's monument, though in a less magnanimous spirit. Destroying it was excluded as an option, but he could preserve the monument as a dedication while removing it as a reminder in the human world of Marius's glory by literally burying it. Such an act is fully in accord with what we know of Sulla's character: superstition toward the gods and spite toward his enemies.

Therefore, in his bold attempt to gain favor by restoring the monument of his kinsman, a man who had perhaps tarnished his reputation by his behavior in the early 80s but whose failings could be forgotten when compared to the bloodshed of Sulla's return, Caesar could not have restored the original, which was presumably buried on the Capitol where it had been dedicated. Instead he had a replica made. Since the original dedication had been made about thirty- five years before, the original artists involved were most likely dead, but their apprentices may well have been still alive, and in any case many must have remembered its appearance. Hence, Caesar's monument must have been a reasonable reflection of the original. It sounds remarkably like Bocchus's monument for Sulla. We have images of Marius instead of the tableau of Bocchus presenting Jugurtha to Sulla. If any faith can be put in Dio's plural (EtKovaq ... Mapiou), perhaps there were separate portrayals of his victories over the Cimbri and Teutoni.18 On both monuments we also have golden trophy-bearing Victories. In the absence of any further indication of the nature of the monuments, it may be that these are simply superficial, generic similari- ties. Furthermore, we should also remember that Dio is describing the more prominent monument and not Marius's trophy over Jugurtha. However, Caesar did restore the latter monument as well, and if it resembled the Capitoline monument, it seems quite likely that Bocchus's was meant as a physical

16 It would appear from Cic. de domo 127, 130, 136-37 that express authorization by the people was needed to dedicate a statue (see T. Mommsen, Romisches Staatsrecht3 [1887- 88] 2.61, 456, 620, 3.339-40). Since the very fact that the monuments were buried shows that the authorizing law (if there was one) was not repealed, Dio's vague reference to v6ootq cat 6yiacot icaropopuyg6vat tiai is inexact. Presumably, a decree of the senate authorized the burial (cf. the SC in Cic. de domo 137), though one cannot be too sure, given our meager evidence, of the procedure used under such unusual circumstances.

17 Dio 42.48.2 18 Admittedly Dio ascribes the monument only to the Cimbri, but Suetonius (see n. 15) calls

it a trophy de ... Cimbris atque Teutonis. Certainly, Marius had been offered a triumph for his defeat of the Teutoni and Ambrones in 102, though he postponed it until he had also defeated the Cimbri and celebrated only one (Livy per. 68).



refutation of Marius's claim to have ended the war against Jugurtha.19 Hence, it is easy to see why Marius would have been enraged by Bocchus's monument, and also why after all the bitterness of the 80s Sulla wreaked posthumous vengeance on Marius by burying his trophies.

It is easy to depreciate the significance of long-gone monuments to men whose greatness no longer means much to us. But if anything, Plutarch's presentation errs on the side of toning down the effect that the restoration must have had. When men awoke to discover restored once more to its position on the Capitol (and presumably at the other site) the trophy of Marius's great victory, in all its golden splendor, the effect must have astounding. Not simply was the act daring in itself. The memory of Marius, the novus homo who, whatever his faults, held the consulship seven times and saved the Roman state from the northern threat which no one else seemed capable of quelling - the memory of this man's glory was rescued from the vindictive spite of bloody Sulla. The consternation on the part of the supporters of Sulla's reconstitution of the state is easy to imagine.

Examination of this incident has highlighted the importance which both Sulla and Marius placed on the commemoration of their deeds in public monuments. Sallust succinctly formulated the ethos of the pagan aristocracy of the late Republic: quoniam vita ipsa qua fruimus brevis est, memoriam nostri quam maxume longam efficere (BC 1.4).20 But naturally while long-term fame may have been a pleasing notion, there was much more immediate gloria to be won from the admiration and acclaim of one's contemporaries. Clearly, the erection of a public monument in commemoration of oneself during one's lifetime was a very high form of gloria and played a major role in acquiring a permanent mystique for oneself. While public opinion may shift like the winds, a monument in stone is a permanent memorial of the acclaim of the moment.21 Such was the nature of Marius's monumenta. Sulla's had a rather different purpose. Instead of recording the acclaim he had won at the time for securing the handing over of Jugurtha, it was intended to assert a retroactive claim on the past: while 19 For whatever reason, Dio restricts himself to the Capitoline monument. Suetonius direct-

ly attests the restoration of both monuments, and of course both existed in Valerius Maximus's day. Caesar took a rather more charitable attitude toward Sulla's famous equestrian statue in the Forum. It had been removed at the time that Caesar's victory at Pharsalus became known in Rome (Dio 42.18.2), but Caesar restored it when he made improvements to the rostra in 44 (Dio 43.49.1, Suet. Div. Jul. 75.4; cf. for Pompey's statues Plut. Caes. 57.6, Cic. 40.5). This act was presumably another element in Caesar's contrast of his own clementia with Sulla's vindictiveness.

20 That Sallust had a rather different form of monumentum in mind does not affect the relevance of his formulation to the attitudes of Sulla and his contemporaries. See also the similar sentiments expressed in Cic. Phil. 9.10.

21 The political significance of the monuments explains why they were erected in Rome rather than on the actual site of the victory. The point was not merely to make an offering to the gods but to do so where Roman citizens would see it on a regular basis.



Marius may have celebrated the triumph over Jugurtha, it was Sulla who really concluded the war. There is little wonder that Marius was so opposed to the monument, and this quarrel may have contributed to Sulla's bitterness to those who supported Marius. No doubt Marius's attempt to secure the command against Jugurtha through the rogatio Sulpicia played a large part in Sulla's hostility, but his later act of throwing down Marius's monuments shows how deeply Sulla felt about their 'monumental' conflict.

Now that we have seen the great importance of public monuments in a Roman general's public persona, let us turn to the monuments erected by Sulla at Chaeronea in commemoration of his victory there in 86.

II. "Discovery" of a Monument of Sulla's at Chaeronea

In 1989 a group of people associated with the American School of Classical Studies in Athens went on a Saturday morning hike in Boeotia and had the good fortune to come across a heretofore unknown inscription near the site of ancient Chaeronea.22 It was written on the base of a monument commemorating two Chaeroneans, Homoloichus and Anaxidamus, who had greatly aided Sulla in his defeat of Archelaus's army there in 86 B.c.23 Indeed, Plutarch actually mentioned the monument in his account of Sulla's victory. In their publication of their find, the discoverers assert that this base formed part of a victory monument of Sulla himself (for convenience's sake, I will henceforth refer to the authors as the "Authors"). This is not so. Reliance on an erroneous interpretation of Plutarch has led to a misunderstanding of the nature of the inscription and the monument on which it was engraved.

Let us begin with the inscription itself. It appears on the base of some form of statuary and reads as follows: 'O,oktXo; Fava[4]ixago; ap[tkcit;. The nominative can be taken in one of two ways. It indicates either the name of what stands on the pedestal or that of the dedicator of the monument. In no way could Sulla be understood to have put up such a monument.24 Since the two names

22 John Camp, Michael Ierardi, Jeremy Mclnerny, Kathryn Morgan, and Gretchen Umholtz, "A Trophy from the Battle of Chaeroneia of 86 B.C.," AJA 96 (1992) 443-455.

23 The two men tell Sulla of a path unknown to the enemy by which a small number of troops could reach high ground to the enemy's rear and dislodge him. Sulla gives them a detachment, which performs as planned (Plut. Sulla 17.6-18. 1).

24 The Authors (n. 22) 448 with n. 17 suggest that Sulla's dedication may have appeared on a lower block now missing. What could this inscription have said when the names of Homoloichus and Anaxidamus stood above in the nominative case? In Greek, when a person is being honored, the practice is to put the dedicatee's name first in the accusative followed by the dedicator's in the nominative, with a verb meaning "honored" understood. For a similar discussion of the syntax of a dedication on Delos, see p. 182-183. The Authors 448 with n. 17 suggest that "the larger names of Sulla and his patron deities" may



appear below the single round base for what appears to be a trophy, then the nominatives must mean that the two Greeks themselves dedicated the monument.

What then does it represent? The Authors translate the word dptatis as "heroes". This will not do. Even if we ignore the possible confusion with the divine word thus translated into English, "hero" does not accurately convey the sense of the Greek. The word obviously derives from the superlative adjective dptroro, and signifies someone marked out as the best. More specifically, it refers to the person elected by the victors after a battle as the person who performed best in battle. The ancient Greeks would thus mark out not only the bravest individual but also the bravest contingent in an army of allies.25 In the present context, one might consider this to be a representation of the Roman praemia virtutis, since the army was commanded by Sulla.26 First, it would seem that Roman military decorations were given only to Roman citizens.27

have appeared on the missing back of the discovered stone, on another block below it, or on the actual victory trophy itself. They themselves admit to the implausibility of the first and third suggestions, and say of the second: "It may seem surprising to place the Chaeroneans' names above Sulla's, but this arrangement would have the advantage of using the larger (lower) block for the longer names of Sulla and his patron deities" (n. 17). First, one may be allowed to wonder how we know the size of the missing block. In any case, as we have seen, there is no way that Sulla's name could appear in connection with the nominatives preserved. Sulla's own dedication at Sicyon (L. Cornelius L.f Sulla imper. Martei [ILLRP 2241) and Octavian's at Actium ([Imp. Caesajr Diu[i lulil f uic[toriam consecutus bellJo quod pro [rle p[ulblic[al ges[silt in hac region[e conslul [quintum imiperatfor selptimum pace parta terra [marique Nepltuno [et Malrt[i clastra [ex] quibuts ad hostem in]seq[endum egriessu[s est naualibus spolilis [exornalta c[onsecrauitl [AE 1992 1534]) have the name of the dedicating general in the nominative and the god in the dative, the standard practice in Latin.

25 See the treatment by W.K. Pritchett, The Greek State at War Part 11(1974) 276-90. 26 In 6.37.10. 8.37.5 and 10.11.6, Polybius uses dpvcneia for such awards by Roman

generals; the word does not appear in 6.39, his discussion of Roman praemia, but there he uses avbpayaOia. which is a synonym.

27 On the topic in general, see Valerie Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (1981). (The book is mainly concerned with the Imperial period, when there is much epigraphical information; it is rather more cursory about the Republic, and she does not even mention the Greek inscription discussed below.) On pp. 121-26 she demonstrates that under the Empire virtually no foreign troops received the standard awards given to citizen troops, but then claims (126-27) that this was not so for the Republic. Yet, in no instance can she cite evidence for an a award to foreign troops apart from a vague reference in Pliny NH 33.37. While the troops of the ala Salluitana did receive such awards, they were also granted Roman citizenship (ILS 8888), and in BH 26 while the peregrine turma Cassiana is granted only a sum of money by Caesar, the Roman praefectus does receive standard awards. Interestingly enough, we have a damaged inscription in which the Aetolians honor a Greek who had apparently been "honored" (teq4[aftvTa]) by Sulla [es' dc]vpaya6i, (IG 92.1.139=SIG3 744). Unfortunately, the man's actual awards are lost (the restoration of 86pari in ll. 3-4 is groundless, and makes



Furthermore, in the directly following section Plutarch notes that at the victory games held at Thebes all the Greeks selected the recipients of the communal honor since Sulla was ill-disposed toward the Thebans.28 If, then, the Greeks determined the victors of the Greek epinician games, it is likely that they also determined the recipients of the ap?CrTEta.29 Plutarch informs us that one of the privileges of winning the aptTta as best contingent was the right to raise a tpo6alov.30 While various awards are attested, it would seem that the Atheni- ans gave a crown and a panoply to the man chosen as best in their own army, and this practice may well have established itself in the Hellenistic period.3 Since the base of the Chaeronea monument is topped by what seems to be a torus moulding for a panoply, the monument could well have supported a

no sense with the restoration [crpartcoricot; 66pto;I made in 11. 5-6 on the basis of an Imperial inscription [BCH 4 (1880) 507, miscited in SEG as BCH 6]). The recipient seems to have been a high commander of the Aetolian league; at any rate, a man who is likely to have been his father was strategos of the league [see IG 92.1.36.1 l=SIG3 444.11]). It is noteworthy that the term used for the award is czv8paya0ia. This suggests that Sulla did not award the synonymous xptalTaE-a, which would be the natural term in connection with anyone named as dptar-u;. Thus, there is no reason to think that papiacrt; here means "recipients of Roman military awards". The simple Greek word should convey its normal Greek meaning.

28 oi S? wpiVoVTr; "jaav 'EXXqvc; ?K XTCXV dXXo.V avaKEKXqrnVoI n0xeov (Sulla 19.6). Appian records that Sulla distributed the 6puoar6a on the day after the battle of Or- chomenos (o 6e k XAa; TS; tx7to161; r6v Te tcaiapXov TctCqQvou tai Ttot; dxXot; dpta(t1Ea e6i6Vo [Mith. 203]), but he seems to be speaking of the Roman military praemia. At any rate, the xa&,iapXo; is the Roman (L. Minucius) Basillus (Mith. 201).

29 The word dpuartia is of course the abstract idea of "excellence." The actual award is often called T6 dptarelov. For the method of election, which was determined by the commanders of the various contingents, see Pritchett (n. 25) 288-89.

30 The fullest evidence for this is from Plutarch's Life of Aristides 20. There he tells of the recriminations that followed the battle of Plataea. The Athenians would not grant T0 dputireov to the Spartans or allow them to erect a tp6nacov (T6rv 'AOvaiWv 16 apieiXclov ToY; lxiaprtrTat; o0) napa&t6vtov ou& 'p6iraiov icrTivatvn oyXo)poi6vx(Ov [20.11). Eventually the matter is turned over to the arbitration of the Greeks, and is settled when it is decided to compromise by rendering the honor to the Plataeans. At the same time the Spartans and Athenians raised their own tponatov separately (gaTrlcav & rp6iratov i6ia piv Aaiceatp6viot X%opi; 6' 'AOTvcxiot [20.31). Plutarch elsewhere refers to this as a quarrel Jt?pi rov3 tpotaiov. t; dvaatdaco, (Mor. 873D). Doubts have been cast on the authenticity of this event, which is not mentioned by Herodotus. For our purposes, the historical truth does not matter (see the discussion in Pritchett [n. 251 283-86). Plutarch associated the right to erect the tp6ratov with the winning of E6 apar-Elov. That being so, there is no reason to disbelieve the possibility of a corresponding right on the part of individuals who won the personal apimreov to make a similar dedication. Even if there is no evidence for such a right in the Classical era, such a right may have been invented later by analogy.

3 1 See Pritchett (n. 25) for a discussion of the reward; the panoply appears in Isoc. 16.29 and Plut. Alc. 7.3.



representation of such an award to Homoloichus and Anaxidamus.32 Accord- ingly, it is permissible to think that this monument is a personal dedication made by Homoloichus and Anaxidamus to commemorate their having won the award of &ptoteia for the battle.33

This conclusion is supported by reflections on the nature of the monument itself. To judge by the published pictures and drawings, it is a decidedly cheap affair.34 The inscription is very crudely inscribed and compares badly with the dedication made by Sulla in Sicyon.35 Surely, the conqueror of Mithridates could have done better. Furthermore, even if we could believe that Sulla erected such a monument to Greeks serving under him, it is impossible to believe that a magistrate of the Roman People would have inscribed it in the uncouth dialect of Boeotia.36

These grounds alone would strongly suggest that the inscription was not put up by Sulla. Let us now turn to the texts of Plutarch which have been interpreted as indicating that he did do so. First, we have Plutarch's reference to victory

32 For the torus, see the Authors (n. 22) 444; 448 for the suggestion that the torus served as the base for a representation of a panoply.

33 The Authors (n. 22) do not clarify the exact nature of the inscription. On 443 n. 2, they cite Pritchett's suggestion that the award of aristeion may have conferred the right to erect a trophy and conclude "In the present passage [Plut. Sulla 19.9] we should perhaps understand the term dp10TEi in a technical sense and consider the honor of being prominently named on the trophy a part of the aristeia received by the two Chaironeians." It is hard to conceive of apioax6 as anything but a technical term, and in any case there is no evidence that this award, whomever it was granted by, conveyed the right to have one's name on someone else's monument. This hesitant suggestion is merely an attempt to paper over the obvious incongruity of the names of the two Boeotians appearing on the victory trophy of the Roman imperator.

34 The Authors say "Three lines of text are preserved, the top two neatly carved ... The third line is less carefully inscribed. The width of the letter spaces varies not only from line to line, but also within each line ... This inequality indicates that the layout of the text was not carefully planned before the inscription was cut" (n. 22) 445. Clearly the arrangement of letters is slovenly, and even the claim of the neatness of the first two lines is belied by the clumsily formed and engraved letters. A cursory examination of the photograph suffices to indicate the inferior craftsmanship of the engraver.

35 A photograph of this inscription (ILLRP 224) is available in HpaQKUcKQ 1938 p. 121. 36 As far as I know, no official correspondence of a Roman magistrate appears in anything

but koine. Plutarch could not bring himself to record this form and tacitly changed it into the koine. There is every reason to believe that a Roman magistrate would have had the same sensibilities (that the Romans were aware of such things is shown by the anecdote about P. Crassus Mucianus knowing all five dialects, i.e., Aeolic, Doric, Arcadian, Attic and koine [Valerius Maximus 8.7.61). The story of Sulla and the fishermen from Halae (Plut. Sulla 26) indicates that Sulla could converse in Greek (it is hard to imagine an interpreter translating the question eTt yap ri t; AXaiov;), as does his quotation of Aristophanes when shown the head of Marius the younger (App. BC 1.435) and perhaps his acquisition of Aristotle's and Theophrastus's works following the capture of Athens (Plut. Sulla 26.1).



monuments at the end of his description of the battle. He mentions Sulla's statement that in the battle he lost fourteen men, and two of these showed up at dusk. Plutarch continues:

6to Kati c6ts poiaiot; Ceiypaxgev "App xcat Niicrv icat 'A0po8itrlv, 6; O%U i1jTov eiUT.Uitq icatopO6aa; S Sstv6nvrt Kcat 8uvd[e t 6ov n6X?0ov. adXXsa oito ?v t6 tp6onatov Ecn'rpCE Ti; X8t?odSO; ga1Xn; niXpCTOV Vev- cKXtvav oi nr-pi 'ApXeXaov (pi p]37 1apa t6 M6Aou p?iOpov, ?tepov &? CEa tot) Ooupiou icata KcopU4Tv iccXK( ?i t KU1COXt t aV apfap- ov, ypcggai stv 'EXXrjvtoi; ?iwiatccivov 'OgoX6tXov cat 'AvaEt8agov apRT?t;. (Sulla 19.5)

37 The Authors (n. 22) accept N.G.L. Hammond's defense ("The Two Battles of Chaeronea [338 B.c. and 86 B.c.]," Klio 31 [1938] 186-218 at 195 n. 2) of the MS. reading, which is dubious. His interpretation is based on his understanding of the verb ryKxcivc, which he takes to be a synonym of 4c5yco. In fact, tyKXivCO refers to the action of giving way before an enemy's attack, and while this action is very often the preliminary to flight (Plut. Fab. 12.3, Polyb. 1.23.10, 1.74.7, 1.76.7, 3.65.7, 3.69.11, 3.116.7, 4.12.7, 5.14.5, 5.23.5.), it is possible to yickivev without fleeing (Polyb. 5.84.10, 11.21.5-6). Ham- mond's interpretation of ?vgicKtvav as a verb of motion leads to his understanding of napc, which he takes as indicating the goal of the flight, with geXpt emphasizing this sense. It is certainly true that nap6 plus the accusative can indicate motion ("towards"). However, it can also indicate the more static sense of "along," and Plutarch's usage in this passage shows that that is what he means here: a river with water "along the very root (of a mountain)" (nap6t rmv OiCav [16.1]), a path leading "along the Museum" (tapa t6 Moueitov [17.61), Sulla sacrificing "along the Cephisus river" (nap& rov Ki4to6v [17.4]). The last example is directly comparable to the sentence about the position of the trophy. On the other hand, when Plutarch directly reports the collapse of Archelaus's left, he uses a different preposition, saying that they fled np6q te t6v orasg6v icai t6 'AK6v,rov 6pos (19.3). Thus, napd indicates the static situation of the barbarians giving way "beside" the channel of the Molus. Hammond in fact conflates the two uses of the preposition when he translates pexpt irapd "as far as beside" (his citation of g6Xpt gni [Xen. Anab. 5.1.1] is inapposite, as there it means "all the way to"). He also says that "the phrase pgXpt napd must be taken to govern (sic) oi nepi' ApXeXaov rather than gve- xKtvav." Such a use of two attributive prepositional phrases, one modified by an adverb, is stylistically doubtful, and the second prepositional phrase is to be understood rather as an adverbial modifier of the verb. (Hammond explains his interpretation as "the wing under Archelaus extending so far as to the stream Molos [irapd with the accusative implying extent]," which seems to contradict his interpretation of iapa as meaning "beside" in the text above.) In fact, in Plutarch g.Xpt is used only in conjunction with 6eipo (Pomp. 24.5) and with xrp6 (Sol. 27.2, Alex. 11.3, Ant. 61.3), that is, with elements indicating actual motion. As for tXpi. itself, it can be explained as an intrusive gloss to make clear the sense of napi (getting it wrong in the process). Accordingly, then, nap& r6 MoXov pCeOpov indicates apo koinou both the site where Archelaus's troops first gave way as a preliminary to their flight and the site where Sulla's victory monument stood in commemoration of the event.



First, Plutarch notes Sulla's habit of inscribing certain deities' names on his monuments. Prima facie, since the inscription in question does not bear these names, it is not one of his trophies.38 Furthermore, the first of the two trophies mentioned by Plutarch does fit into this category. It is Sulla's trophy for his victory, and is placed below in the plain. Such is the sense of Toi3-ro in Plutarch's phrase toi-ro jev To Tpo6iatov. The demonstrative adjective ol'to; marks out that which is determined by context, and what Plutarch means is that this (namely the one dedicated to Mars, Victory and Venus) is the monument commemorating the victory on the plain.39 Plutarch then shifts, and mentions a second trophy (etspov).40 The Authors automatically assume that the second Tpo6atov was set up by Sulla, but this is not necessarily so. Who dedicated it is not indicated by Plutarch. As we have seen, Homoloichus and Anaxidamus did so, using the right bestowed on them by virtue of the award of aeptaEtea. Accordingly, when Plutarch here mentions two rpo6iata, he does not actually mean that both were set up by Sulla himself as dedications commemorating his victory.41 The monument discovered in 1989 was not technically Sulla's

38 For the impossibility of restoring Sulla's name on the monument, see n. 24. 39 In their translation, the Authors (n. 22) 443 ignore the adjective and begin the sentence

"Now the trophy of the battle of the plain stands ..." It is not possible that in this phrase we have the common idiom roiro ev ... toiTo Ue with the roi3ro & replaced, as some times happens, by simple Se. Plutarch is fond of roxro gEv, but a check of the TLG reveals that he always has roi3'ro Se for the second element (Them. 5.4, Cam. 19.2-3, Tim. 15.2-4, Flam. 3.1, 15.4, Mar. 9.3, Sulla 12.3, 12.6, 14.5, Caes. 5.9, Cic. 5.4, 12.2, 36.7, Demet. 53.2, Brut. 12.2, Arat. 24.2, 50.5, Mor. 260E, 317C, 325B, 417E, 588F, 687C, 963C). Furthermore, &kXX indicates that the sentence introduced by it must in some way contrast with what precedes (see J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles2 ([19541 1-21), and so far as I can tell there is no usage that corresponds to the Authors' "now," which is presumably resumptive or concessive. Plutarch in fact often uses a woro .6v ... &e construction introduced by aXXd to show a contradiction with what precedes: the ?v clause summarizes or illustrates what precedes and the &e clause then represents some kind of contrast: Rom. 21.2, Alex. 60.7, Mor. 380D, 566C, 1078D, 1093B. (When the roi)o Pev ... S? construction is used to elaborate rather than contradict what precedes, it is introduced by Kcai: Rom. 13.5, Mor. 30B.) In these examples, rofi3o is always a pronoun. This suggests that in Sulla 19.5 co6ro is the subject of the pseudo-copulative verb 9CFTTKE and r6T p6iraov is predicative (for a similar construction, see Rom. 13.5). In the Sulla passage the singular refers to the one example from Chaeronea of the trophies whose inscriptions Plutarch mentioned in the preceding sentence.

40 For a similar contrast of roiiro g6v with 9TEpOV Ue see Rom. 13.5. 41 The ease with which the two monuments can be associated with one another since they

derive from the same battle is illustrated by the reference to these monuments in Pausani- as, who says: XacpwvEvik SU Hio oarlv ?v Xij x& pop6Irwa a 'Pwpalot Kai ?6Xa; tcrn,av Ta4iXov Keai crpariav Mt0ptS6,ro-o Kpanscavxe (9.40). The reference to the Romans shows that he is speaking only in generalities, since the dedication on the plain was made by Sulla in person, and the Romans had nothing to do with it.



-rp6oatov, but it did attest to Sulla's victory there and thus could be character- ized as a ?poKatov in the general sense. In accordance with their interpretation of what the monument ought to have been, the Authors compare a statue of a panoply, which was found at Orchomenos and may derive from a Sullan pTp6iatov erected to commemorate his later victory there, and they suggest that a similar panoply may have been supported by the base on which was engraved the dpiacrs text.42 As we have seen, this is a likely form for the monument of the Boeotians to have taken, and this may explain why Plutarch could so easily associate two different monuments, though it remains possible that the monument took some other form.

Before proceeding to the two passages taken to support the interpretation of the new monument as one of Sulla's, it must be emphasized that the dedication of the monument in the plain was written in Latin. There is no other explanation for Plutarch's notice that the inscription to Homoloichus and Anaxidamus was written in Greek letters. Since Plutarch was transmitting a Greek inscription with Greek letters, this statement makes sense only as a contrast to something not written in Greek letters and this can only be the inscription on the monument to the battle on the plain. This fits in well both with the practice of most other Romans and with Sulla's own practice. It is true that L. Mummius made a dedication at Olympia in Greek (Olympia 5 #278). Subsequent Romans do not appear to have followed this example. When making a dedication at Delphi following the defeat of Perseus king of Macedon, L. Aemilius Paullus used Latin: L. Aimilius L.f imperator de rege Perse Macedonibusque (ILLRP 323). M. Minucius Thermus, legatus to his brother in 110-106, likewise made a dedication in Latin at Delphi (ILLRP 52). Octavian used Latin in his trophy monument at Actium.43 Indeed, in making a dedication to Ares in Sicyon, Sulla himself used Latin: L. Cornelius L.f Sulla imper(ator) Martei (ILLRP 224). The Authors note that this inscription was apparently on a "statue base ... and cannot therefore be adduced as a comparandum".4 By not actually quoting the inscription and by characterizing the monument as merely a statue base, they can lend credence to their dubious conclusion. But why should a dedication to the god Mars in a Greek sanctuary not be a valid comparandum? Is Sulla likely to have thought that he should speak to the gods in Latin in Sicyon but use Greek on a victory monument (which was, after all, a dedication to the gods)?

Yet Plutarch makes statements that suggest that the monuments in Chaero- nea bore the Greek title Etacp66vxo;. The Authors assume that this must mean that the monuments were both set up by Sulla and both had Greek dedications.45

42 Authors (n. 22) 449. 43 See note 24. 44 Authors (n. 22) 448 n. 16. 45 Even including the names of the gods, who are rendered as "Ares, Nike and Aphrodite" in

the Authors' (n. 22) translation on 443. Here one is directly confronted with the contrast with Sulla's dedication to Mars in Sicyon.



As we have seen, this interpretation is contradicted by the sense of the newly discovered inscription. Also, how then can these passages in Plutarch be recon- ciled with his implication that the monument in the plain was dedicated in Latin?

First, we should consider the title 'Enarpo6'tvo; itself. This is a Greek translation of the Latin title Felix, which Sulla assumed after the death of the younger C. Marius in late 82 at the time of the fall of Praeneste.46 In order to explain Plutarch's statements which apparently ascribe the title to the dedication of the Chaeronea monuments, Balsdon suggested that Sulla used the Greek title before receiving the Latin one.47 For this there is no other evidence, and much to contradict it. In no preserved inscription from the period before 82 does he receive the title 'Eica4po68to;. Indeed, in the senatus consultum settling the dispute between the publicans and the shrine of Amphiarus at Oropus (Sherk RDGE 23) Sulla is given the name 'Enapp6&tov when he is mentioned in his consulship in 80 (1. 52) but is called accitoKpdrwp for the decision he made on behalf of Amphiarus in Achaea before his return (1. 39). This of course is simply a reflection in Greek translation of the fact that Sulla used the title imperator after the victory of Chaeronea and received the title Felix after his return to Italy. But it is surely inconceivable that Sulla would have adopted a distinct titulature for himself in Greek.

Let us now examine the passages from Plutarch. First, we have a passage from Plutarch's discussion of the good fortune of the Romans, where he discusses Sulla's felicity:

Kai PCi'RoatYTi ?v 4iXtt dVOgd6Eto, tot; 8e "EXXrlat o"To `ypaoE- Aol5Ktoq KopviXto; Zi5XXa; 'Ena4p68Voq. Kait xra nap' hpliv ?v Xatpo- v?iQt tp6ina icatax t6v MtOpt&atlKv ov rwo; i ypwrta. (Mor. 318D) There is no mistaking that Plutarch seems to be speaking of both monu-

ments as bearing this inscription. Since we have seen that the monument discovered cannot have borne this inscription, it is reasonable to conclude that

46 So Velleius Paterculus 2.27.5 (J.V.P.D. Balsdon ["Sulla Felix," JRS 41 (1951) 1-101 10 n. 105 oddly ascribes this fact to Diodorus 38/39.15, which says nothing of the kind); see also de viris illustribus 75.9. Plut. Sulla 34.2 discusses the title after the triumph over Mithridates (celebrated on the 28th and 29th of January 81 [fast. Cap.]) but this has no chronological validity. App. BC 1.452 records the opinion of two sources about the title. One indicated that it derived from sycophants' flattery of him as being successful over his personal enemies (81EVUXo0i)Va cir roT; iXfP1it;). This fits well with the death of Marius (eXOpoi obviously represents the Latin inimici and refers to his political opponents in Rome and not to Mithridates, a hostis of the Roman People). The other associated the title with the law voting him immunity for his actions (see n. 112). This again is an event that follows his victory at the Porta Collina, dating the title to the period of his return to Italy.

47 Balsdon (n. 46) 9-10.



Plutarch has erroneously ascribed to both monuments the inscription of the one in the plain. Since Plutarch himself in the description of the monuments given in the Life of Sulla mentions verbatim the inscription preserved on the hill monument, it would seem that he knew better. Mentioning the two monuments of his home town while making a passing reference to Sulla's titulature, Plutarch carelessly conflated two similar monuments.

The second passage comes from a mention of Sulla's use of the title Felix:

acio56; & toY; "EXUlat ypadOCv Kat Xpil,artt4v, Eavr&v 'Eiawp66ttov mvfyopEiE, Kcai nap iliYv ?V roto tponatot; oirwS avayeypanrat AE?-

'cto; Kopvi'ktoo; 1XXa; 'Ela4po6&to;. (Sulla 34.2) First, we should note that Plutarch claims to be speaking of Sulla's usage of the title 'Ena0po68to; in "writing to and dealing with" the Greeks, and then cites this usage for the trophies. But is writing an inscription on a trophy a manner of writing to or dealing with the Greeks? No, it is a matter of a Roman magistrate dedicating the spoils of victory to the gods. As we have seen, Plutarch himself clearly implied when directly discussing the Chaeronean trophies that the trophy on the plain was inscribed in Latin. How then can we reconcile the fact that Plutarch does assert that the monument had the Greek title 'Ena0op68to; on it with his implication that monument had a Latin inscription, especially when this implication seems to be confirmed by Sulla's practice in Sicyon and by the practice of other Romans? The Authors take it as the "most economical" solution to take the meaning of Moralia 318 and Sulla 34.4 as self-evident and to assume that the monument in Chaeronea is in Greek, but they do not explain why he specifies the inscription on the hill as being in Greek.48 One might assume with Balsdon that Sulla used the title in Greek before he received the Latin version, but there is no evidence for this.49 One might argue that the Chaeronea monument was not erected until after Sulla's return to Italy, but here there are chronological difficulties. The inscription in Sicyon was put up before Sulla returned to Italy, as is indicated by the use of the title imperator and the absence of Felix. It is hard to believe that Sulla could have made such a dedication but not erected the trophy at the site of his signal victory over the army of Archelaus until at least five years later following his return to Italy. Balsdon suggests that the title was added later to the original inscription.50 It is

48 Authors (n. 22) 48 n. 16. There they reject Keaveney's suggestion that Plutarch's Latin was "shaky" by pointing to his ruminations about the appropriate way to translate Felix in Sulla 34.2. Consideration of a single word hardly points to fluency. In fact, in Demos. 2.2-3 Plutarch makes his ineptitude in Latin quite clear. Like many an undergraduate, he did not come to the meaning of the Latin from the words, but instead understood the Latin because he already knew what it was saying. Imagine if it did not say what he expected!

49 See p. 175, esp. n. 46. 50 Balsdon (n. 46) 10.



hard to see what the point of this would be, and no other inscriptions erected during the proconsulship are 'updated' in this way.

The solution may lie in a certain lack of specificity on Plutarch's part. He seems to say that the title 'Ena0p68tro; appears on both monuments in Chaer- oneia. As we have seen, this cannot be true of the monument on the hill, but presumably was true of the monument on the plain. While Plutarch does show himself to be familiar with the inscription on the former, one might wonder how often he actually saw it. In ascribing the title to both, he may have erroneously generalized from the plains monument to that on the hill. Unless we are to claim that Plutarch is simply wrong, the title 'Eica4p66vro; must have appeared on the former. But Plutarch nowhere states that the dedication of the monuments in Chaeronea bore the title. In both passages where he associates the title with those monuments, he states that Sulla used the title when writing to the Greeks (rot; ? "EXXk-ot ou`o) F'ypa4e [Mor. 31 8D],toY; "EXXal(t ypdclov Kai XpT,ua- tiuov [Sulla 34.4]). As a solution I would propose that the monument on the plain had written on its base a later inscription which preserved the text of a letter written by Sulla after he received the title in late 82. Such a letter was most likely, though not necessarily, addressed to the Chaeroneans. Sulla's victory monument may at first seem to be an odd place to preserve such a letter. If. however, the letter was in some way connected with Sulla's treatment of the city as a result of its role in the battle, this would not be an inappropriate place for its preservation.51

Thus, the new discovery demonstrates that there were not two Sullan victory monuments to the battle of Chaeronea. Instead, while he himself erected a monument which had a Latin inscription on it and may also have preserved on it a later letter of his, perhaps to the Chaeroneans, the new discovery turns out to be a private commemoration of the fact that two Chaeroneans, Homoloichus and Anaxidamus, were awarded the dptarrEta for their services in assisting Sulla's victory.

III. When Did Sulla Receive his Second Acclamation as imperator?

RRC #359 is a controversial coin that alludes to Sulla's second acclamation as imperator, bearing the legend IMPER(ator) ITERV(m) and portraying two victory monuments. It used to be thought that the coin was issued before Sulla's

51 Apart from the services of Homoloichus and Anaxidamus, Chaeronea is twice attested as having helped Sulla: a Chaeronean guided the passage of Sulla's legate Hortensius across Parnassus when he returned with troops from Thessaly (Plut. Sulla 15.3), and a detachment of Chaeroneans served with Sulla at the battle of Chaeronea (16.8). In a forthcoming article in Klio ("Damon of Chaeronea: the Loyalties of a Boeotian Town during the First Mithridatic War"), I discuss the reasons why the pro-Roman Chaeroneans may have had particular cause to demonstrate their goodwill to Sulla.



return to Italy, and thus the inscription had to signify that when, as we know, Sulla was hailed imperator following the battle of Chaeronea in 86, this was the second occasion for this honor and presumably he had received an earlier, unrecorded acclamation in Cilicia in the 90s. Crawford showed that the coin was minted in Italy, though he confused matters by arguing on hoard evidence that the coin was issued early in the campaign in Italy before the battle of the Porta Collina. In a more recent article, Thomas R. Martin has demonstrated that Crawford's criterion for dating the coin is invalid, and has argued that Sulla received his second imperatorial acclamation after the battle of the Porta Collina, which took place on November 1, 82.52 This article is well argued, but it can nonetheless be shown with a reasonable degree of certainty that its thesis is not correct. Sulla won his first acclamation in Cilicia and the second followed the battle of Chaeronea. Since Martin's is the only account which is based on a correct interpretation of the coin's place of minting and of the hoard evidence, I will review Martin's arguments and show they do not necessarily lead to his conclusion and that the alternative view is preferable. I discuss the evidence under four rubrics (these generally correspond to Martin's main arguments, though not to the order in which he presents them).

1) Multiple Imperatorial Acclamations Martin begins with the premise that only one acclamation was permissible per "campaign" and argues that Sulla must have been acclaimed after the battle of Chaeronea, and hence that the other acclamation must either have preceded or followed. The contention about Chaeronea is certainly correct. Sulla referred to himself as imperator while rallying his troops at the battle of Orchomenos, which followed that of Chaeronea. Accordingly, he must have been hailed imperator at Chaeronea, his first victory in battle during the Mithridatic war.53

The contention about "campaigns" is not so obvious. The evidence for this comes from Dio Cassius's notice that contrary to traditional procedure Claudius was hailed imperator several times during the conquest of Britain, even though the normal procedure was one acclamation per war.54 This may well represent procedure under the Empire, when no one but the emperor himself was allowed to be hailed imperator. The reason for Claudius's "greedy" attitude is obvious. The whole purpose of the invasion of Britain was to create a martial reputation

52 T.R. Martin, "Sulla Imperator Iterum, the Samnites and Roman Republican Coin Propa- ganda," SNR 68 (1989) 19-44.

53 The direct evidence for this is Front. strat. 2.8.12 and Amm. Marc. 16.21.41; Plut. Sulla 21.2, App. Mith. 49, 195 and Polyaenus strat. 8.9.2 also report the anecdote without specifying the title. For discussion of this and other implicit evidence, see Martin (n. 52) 26.

54 ainoKcpdrOp tokkdKa; itwcovoji6aO napa 'r& iardpta (ov6 yap cartv Evi oV&vt nxZov i datia ?1C tOV aivtofv noXigou Tnv eix6cXqcrv avUx,Tjv Xaotv) (60.21.4-5).



for this new emperor, who had neither military prestige in his own right nor the blood of Augustus in his veins. The situation under the Republic is not at all so clear. No one before Sulla is recorded as a "multiple" imperator. Indeed, the very fact of a single man being able to celebrate triumphs over many different foes defeated over the course of a promagistracy (or in Marius's case repeated consulships) that extended over several years was a comparative new situation. Marius was offered to triumph over the Teutoni and Ambrones in 102 but waited until he had defeated the Cimbri as well in the following year to celebrate a single triumph.55 Perhaps this course set precedent. Certainly, Pompey is only recorded as imperator ter, presumably to match his three triumphs: one in 80 (or 81?) commemorating his victory in Africa, one in 71 commemorating his victory in Spain and finally one in 61 commemorating his victories in the East.56 This suggests that the number of acclamations was limited not by the number of wars but by the number of magistracies. This feeling is confirmed when we look at the actual substance of Pompey's third triumph. Pliny preserves for us the very praefatio to that triumph:

cum oram maritimam praedonibus liberasset et imperium maris populo Romano restituisset, ex Asia Ponto Armenia Paphlagonia Cappodocia Cilicia Syria Scythis ludaeis Albanis Hiberia insula Creta Basternis et super haec de rege Mithridate atque Tigrane triumphavit. (NH 7.97)57 Clearly he could under these circumstances have had more than one accla-

mation in the East if he had desired and if this had been normal procedure.58 As promagistrate (or magistrate) a general operated with his regular title until a major victory in the field, at which point the troops hailed him as imperator, this acclamation serving as a preliminary to the general claim to enter the city in triumph. (After the triumph, of course, the title would lapse).59 The tendency in

55 Seen. 18. 56 For the dating of the first triumph, see E. Badian, "The Date of Pompey's First Triumph,"

Hermes 83 (1955) 107-18 and "Servilius and Pompey's Triumph," Hermes 89 (1961) 254-56.

57 Cf. the description of Valerius Maximus: de Mithridate et Tigrane, de multis praeterea regibus plurimisque civitatibus et praedonibus unum duxit triumphum (8.15.8).

58 Note that Pompey already claimed the honor from his defeat of the pirates: when he met Lucullus to assume the war against Mithridates, he already had laurel decorations on his fasces (Plut. Pomp. 31.2, Lucull. 36.2). One might also compare Pompey's claim on the trophy he erected in Spain that he had subdued 886 civitates (Pompeius Magnus tropaeis suis quae statuebat in Pyrenaeo DCCCLXXXVI oppida ab Alpibus ad fines Hispaniae Ulterioris in dicionem a se redacta testatus sit [Pliny NH 3.4.3, cf. 7.27.61). This activity again resulted in a single acclamation as imperator and a single triumph. If multiple acciamations were permissible leading up to a single triumph, one wonders why Pompey did not receive more, when he was clearly interested in proclaiming the number of his victories.

59 In the late Republic there was a tendency for this title to become permanent: see ILLRP



the later Republic was that once achieved the title imperator would be used instead of the civil designation.60 In this context, an additional acclamation served little function. Even if one celebrated a multiple triumph as Caesar did in 46, one was not any more of an imperator by virtue of a victory in a second war fought during the course of the same promagistracy. If this is so, it makes more sense to view Sulla's designation as imperator iterum as referring to his acclamation at Chaeronea and the earlier one as referring to Cilicia.

2) Evidence for Sulla's Acclamation in Cilicia Martin next attempts to refute evidence for such a Cilician acclamation. We have direct if dubious attestation in the late Antique miscellany of various information written by Ampelius. In that work, we have under the category of Parthian kings the listing

Arsaces, fonna et virtute praecipuus, cuius posteri Arsacidae cognominati sunt; qui pacem cum Sulla imperatorefecit. (31.2) Clearly there is garbling here. The first Arsaces is not the man who made

peace with Sulla. In fact, Sulla made peace with Mithridates king of Pontus and entered into a relationship of friendship with an envoy of Arsaces king of Parthia.61 Festus refers to the same incident and calls Sulla pro consule, Martin hastening to add that he "has it right" (29). But there is no real choosing between these two very late sources. Martin simply prefers that Festus be correct in using the title pro consule. But of course Festus's title does not exclude the imperatorial acclamation, and from the point of view of a late antique source, the Republican use of the title would be confusing. After all Sulla was a proconsul, and a late reference does not prove that he was not also an imperator.

Martin banishes to a mere reference in a footnote clear indication that Sulla's Cilician campaign did involve military activity. Sulla was sent to restore to his throne Ariobarzanes, whom the Romans had recently installed as king in

382, an inscription on the base of a statue raised in Pompey's honor by the people of Auximum (quoted n. 122). This town was in the clientela of Pompey (see Plut. Pomp. 6.3-4) and their use of the title imperator so long after his triumph was a form of flattery. Though there is some confusion, this is the context in which to interpret Dio's (43.44.2) and Suetonius's (Div. Jul. 76.2) claim that Caesar was granted the praenomen imperatoris. In fact, in 45 after the battle of Munda the senate allowed Caesar to retain permanently the regular title imperator even after his triumph; see Mommsen (n. 16) 2.767.

60 See work cited by Martin (n. 52) 29 n. 38. 61 Martin (n. 52) 28 n. 33 notes that the Parthian king with whom Sulla entered into an

arrangement of friendship bore the personal name of Mithridates along with the title Arsaces and implies that Ampelius was confusing him with the Pontic king of the same name with whom Sulla did make peace. Yet both Plutarch (Sulla 5.4) and Festus (brevi- arium 15) use only the name Arsaces, which suggests that Ampelius would probably not have known of the personal name.



Cappadocia at the request of the locals. Sulla succeeds in this mission after defeating Armenian troops and their Parthian commander Gordius, using most- ly local troops:

ui8av g.t-v oiuv )vagtv ov) noXX7-lv Ct'?yero, XpiadVevo; 8e toY; aria- xot; tpo&Vt4iot;, Kcat okkoXXo; jiv a&rdv Kanna8oixv i)iova; 8' avi0t; Apjieviov npoapoflOobvTa; dnoicteivaq, r6p&tov p?v ?nIXaasv, Apto- Iap-advqv &? P&t1e aastkXa (Sulla 5.3).

Clearly this campaign involved a fair amount of military activity, and resulted not only in accomplishing its main aim, but also in inducing the Parthian king to seek the friendship of the Roman People for the first time.62 Once the campaign is viewed in this light, the possibility of an imperatorial acclamation becomes much less unlikely.

Martin cites several inscriptions from the east as indicating that Sulla operated there in an official capacity in which he was not called imperator. Two come from Delos, and both refer to L. Cornelius L.f Sulla pro cos. (ILLRP 349, 350). A Rhodian inscription lists a number of embassies undertaken by a man of that island, including one (apparently) to Sulla atpaMyor; dvffijnato; PwoiaiOv (ILS 8772=SIG3 745). Since Sulla seems to have used the title imperator after his acclamation at Chaeronea, Martin wishes to ascribe these inscriptions to a time before that battle, in particular to the period directly following his proconsulship in Cilicia. Thus it could be taken as proven that Sulla did not receive an imperatorial acclamation in Cilicia. A review of these inscriptions shows that they can be explained as coming from the early stages of the Mithridatic war, and are thus not contradictory to the idea that Sulla received an imperatorial acclamation in Cilicia.

Let us begin with the Delian inscriptions. One should consider what exactly the inscriptions signify. Although there are various discussions of the significance of these inscriptions, no one, as far as I am aware, has attempted a direct exegesis of them. Both contain Sulla's name in the nominative case with no verb. The nominative without a verb can signify two things in Latin inscriptions. First, it can commemorate the name of the person who dedicated or erected the monument thus inscribed.63 Second, it can be used as a rubric to indicate the person portrayed in the monument. By the last days of the Republic and during the Empire, this function was normally indicated by the dative case.64 The

62 For a discussion of the place of this fighting in the context of putting Ariobarzanes on his throne, see Brennan (n. 8) 150-151. For the friendship with Parthia, see Plut. Sulla 5.4, where it is also emphasized that Sulla was the first Roman to whom a Parthian king thus applied.

63 E.g., ILLRP 326-28, 330, 333. Note that apart from the last example, all these instances contain an ablative absolute (e.g., Carthagine capta) or dative (e.g., vico) to make the sense of the omitted verb obvious.

64 Examples are extremely numerous. Note in the present context several dedications to



situation is not so clear for the second and early first centuries B.C. One can find instances of the Greek usage of the accusative.65 There is also, however, attestation of use of the "nominative of rubric," that is, of using a simple nominative as indicating the subject of a work of art. This usage is attested for the pre-Sullan period.66 LLRP 324 preserves the dedication on fragments of what appears to have been a marble statue base: L. Manlius L. Acidinus triu(m)vir Aquileiae coloniae deducundae. This inscription was found at Aquileia, and Degrassi assumes in his commentary in ILLRP that the base on which it was inscribed supported a statue of the colony's founder. ILLRP 325 is an inscription written on the abacus of a marble column: M. Claudius M.f Marcelus consol iterum. Degrassi again assumes that the column supported a statue of Marcellus. From the Sullan period we have two highly relevant comparanda. ILLRP 361 is from a statue base found on Delos: Q. Pompeius Q.f. Ruf(us) cos. This inscription commemorates Sulla's colleague in the consulship. Since he was killed in that year, the dedication dates from the time of Roman recovery of the island after Sulla's defeat of Mithridates, which shows that the nominative of rubric was in use on Delos at that time.67 The other comparandum is provided by the equestrian statue erected in Sulla's honor before the rostra in the Roman forum. The inscription on the base of that statue is preserved by Appian as Kopv-Xkiou FivXka 'yEg6vo; ExkuXoZi; (BC 1.451). The absence of the praenomen shows that Appian's version cannot be taken as literally true; hence we can ignore the peculiar genitive. Gabba follows Balsdon in translating this as L. Cornelio Sullae Felici Imperatori.68 In this context, however, scholars have noted several dedications to Sulla as L. Comnelio Ff Sullae Felici dictatori (ILLRP 352-356). In all these inscriptions there follows after the dative a nominative of the dedicator. Sulla' s title in these inscriptions is clearly modeled on the inscription of Sulla's equestrian statue in the forum. The basic correct- ness of the forms in ILLRP 352-356 is demonstrated by RRC #381. This coin

Sulla as L. Cornelio F.f Sullae Felici imperatori (see discussion p. 175-176); also ILLRP 351. In SEG 25.1267, 1268 Greek accusatives are rendered in Latin with datives.

65 E.g., ILLRP 320, 337, 343, 359, 362-63, 369-370, 376. In all these instances one has the nominative of the dedicator(s), which makes the syntax clear.

66 I. Calabi Limentani, L'epigraphia latina (1968) 239 asserts that "i resti epigrafici piui antichi di statue di viventi con il nome del titolare della statua al nominativo non sono dediche" and were not erected by the community but by man honored himself, who received this right as a reward for services rendered. She cites no evidence for this interpretation, and the phraseology she uses ("sembra cioV") indicates that it is merely a guess, presumably motivated by the divergence of this earlier procedure from the later use of the dative.

67 The word cos. was added by a different hand. As Degrassi notes in ILLRP, this does not preclude the view that the inscription was erected as a posthumous honor.

68 E. Gabba (Appiani bellorum civilium liber primus [1958]) ad loc.; Balsdon (see n. 46) 4 with n. 50. Cf. ILLRP 351: L. Cornelio L.f Sullae Feleici imperatori publice.



portrays an equestrian statue on the reverse, and has two variants for the accompanying inscription. RRC subvariety la has L. SVLL FELI DIC, while lb has L. SVLLA FELIX DIC. The latter demonstrates that the inscription on the base was not in the genitive, as Appian indicates, but in the nominative, and that Appian's 'yEJLcOv does in fact represent dictator. The datives of ILLRP 352- 356 are to be explained as deriving from the syntactical necessity of those inscriptions, which indicated not only the subject of the work of art but also the identity of the dedicators. One can also guess on the basis of the derivative inscriptions that the Roman inscription probably included Sulla's filiation but this was omitted from the coin for reasons of space constraints. We can thus reconstruct the inscription as L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla Felix dictator. It would seem, then, that Sulla's statue was remarkable in more ways than simply being the first equestrian image erected in the rostra.69 The inscription on it indicated no dedicator at all but instead merely indicated the identity of the horse's rider. As we have seen, this form of inscription was by no means unprecedented, and this less usual form was doubtless chosen intentionally. The statue did not represent the act of someone else in honoring Sulla: the dictator beloved of the gods stood there in his own right in the nominative case, in no way subordinated syntactically to a dedicator just as in the real world he was not subject to anyone else's control.70

69 Cic. Phil. 9.13, Velleius Paterculus 2.61.3. Although H. Gesche ("Die Reiterstatuen der Aemilier und Marcier," JMG 18 [19681 25-48 at 27 n. 6) is uncertain, it would seem, given the evidence cited there, that the novelty of Sulla's statue was the placement of an equestrian statue on the rostra.

70 It is interesting in this context to note the reverse of RRC #291. This portrays three arches upon which rests an equestrian statue with the rider wearing a cuirass and wreath and holding a spear. Around the border is the legend MN. AEMILIO and between the arches LEP. Crawford (RRC #305) argues that this is the name of the moneyer on the grounds that "since most Republican coin legends are of indeterminate case, the dative is hardly significant," and rejects the notion that the legend indicates the name of the horseman because "such a name should be in the nominative (see no. 381 for the only unequivocal example)". I am not sure what the first argument means. If "indeterminate" means that the case endings of the moneyers' names are regularly omitted, this is of course true, but proves nothing about the case in which they appear. Study of the moneyers' names from their first appearance down to the 49 indicates much evidence for the nominative and some for the genitive. Certain instances of the nominative: #233, #248, #255, #259, #263, #269, #271, #286, #288, #293, #300, #316, #335/9 and 10, #337, #342, #344, #347, #354, #355, #356, #357, #362, #366, #369, #388, #391, #398, #399, #400, #402, #404, #405, #409, #415, #417, #419, #421, #422, #425, #426, #428, #429, #430, #431, #432, #433, #436, #439, #440, #442. There are also a number of forms which are almost certainly nominative. These consist of first and third declension forms where it is not impossible that the ending has been omitted (e.g., NATTA may represent Nattae and LABEO, Labeonis). There is, however, no reason to think that such an abbreviation was used, but for the sake of being conservative I class these forms as likely nominatives: #185, #186, #205, #207(?=FLAVVS), #208, #215, #216, #229, #237, #258, #268, #270, #273, #274,



Now let us return to the inscriptions from Delos. ILLRP 349 (L. Cornelius L.f Sulla pro cos.) is apparently the base of an equestrian statue.71 Hence there should be no doubt that the inscription indicates that Sulla was the person portrayed. ILLRP 350 (L. Cornelius L.f Sulla pro cos. I de pequnia quam con- legia I in commune conlatam) is not so obvious. It is engraved on a capital of the Doric order. Martin follows Keaveney and earlier scholars in suggesting that Sulla visited Delos after his defeat of Mithridates's armies, and assumes that if Sulla was personally involved in the erection of the Delian monuments after the battle of Chaeronea, his title of imperator would have to have been used; hence these inscriptions refer to an earlier activity on his part in the east, at a time when he did not have the title. Martin ascribes this period to Sulla's "leisurely" (30) return from Cilicia. But there is no evidence for any such visit.72 Further- more, Martin does not directly address the issue of the sense of the phrase de pecunia quam collegia in commune conlatam. It is not clear how he takes this, but he suggests that Sulla may have used money provided by the collegia of Delos.73 Degrassi had a similar explanation, suggesting that the verb obtulerunt is to be understood in the relative clause.74 This will not do. Cicero's extensive

#276, #279, #292, #296, #301, #302, #305, #310, #330, #334, #340, #343, #348, #352, #390, #392, #395, #407, #408, #410, #416, see #417, #418. There is also a much smaller number of genitives: #243, #281, #306, #403, #412, #414, #424, #434. There is no way to tell whether the many nomina ending only in -i (e.g., A. MANLI Q.F. SER. [#309]) are to be taken as nominative or genitive. There is, however, not one single instance of the moneyer's name appearing in the dative case. (What in any case would such a usage mean?) It is conceivable that the form MANLIO represents the archaic spelling as in L. Cornelio(s) L.f Scipio (ILLRP 310). Such a dropping of final S can be paralleled among moneyers' names only in L. MINVCIV (#248), and even here the ending is -iu(s) (note also that that form is anomalous, most dies having MINVCI). It is thus hard to avoid concluding that #291 preserves the inscription of the statue in the dative case. In this case, the coin does not directly name the moneyer, who was presumably some Aemilius Lepidus (see n. 145 for another "implicit" naming of a moneyer).

71 So Degrassi in ILLRP. 72 For those supporting this suggestion, see Degrassi in ILLRP. It must be emphasized that

the hypothesis of a personal visit is merely a way of explaining the nominative of the inscription when it is taken as indicating the dedicator. Once this assumption is removed, there is no need for a personal visit by Sulla. Indeed, Plutarch informs us (Sulla 26. 1) that Sulla spent three days in crossing with his entire fleet from Asia to the Piraeus in 84. One would expect that the logistics of such an operation kept Sulla rather occupied.

73 Martin (n. 52) 29 mentions as possible dedicators "Sulla himself," "one of Sulla's minions carrying out his wishes," and "some Italian traders operating on Delos who hoped to anticipate what would flatter Sulla to good effect." The offering of these three alternatives indicates that Martin has no definite interpretation of the meaning of the inscription.

74 Ad loc.: "Titulus integer est, unde in fine intellegas obtulerunt. Sulla igitur in monumentum quoddam convertit pecuniam a collegiis sibi oblatam." The editors of In-scriptions de Delos (on their ##1849, 1850) suggestedfecit to go with Sulla's name and dederunt to go with the relative.



discussion of the money provided by the Sicilians to Verres for the erection of statues in his honor (under duress as a form of extortion according to Cicero) demonstrates that conferre itself is the verb used to describe the act of contrib- uting money for this purpose.75 Cicero accuses Verres of forcing the Sicilians to contribute money toward the erection of statues which will never be set up. Clearly the money is still in Verres's possession and it is he who will erect the statues.76 Could he then have inscribed the bases of these statues with the inscription c. VERRES EX PECUNIA QUAM SICILIENSES CONTULERUNT? It would appear not. Cicero argues that a limit has to be set on the number of statues to be erected, and picks out Syracuse to illustrate what had happened. He first notes that they erected statues to Verres, his son and his father.

Verum quotiens et quot nominibus a Syracusanis statuas auferes? Ut in foro statuerent, abstulisti, ut in curia, coegisti, ut pecuniam conferrent in eas statuas quae Romae ponerentur imperasti; ut idem darent homines aratorum nomine, dederunt, ut idem pro parte in commune Siciliae conferrent, etiam id contulerunt. (2.2.145)

He later makes mention of these statues: huic etiam Romae videmus in basi statuarum maximis litteris inscriptum a communi Siciliae datas (154).77 These remarks are important for our purposes for two reasons. First they provide a direct parallel for in commune conferre meaning "contribute into a fund" for the purposes of raising a statue. Second, the inscriptions on the statues clearly indicated that the contributors themselves erected the statues and not the dedicatee. This is exactly what one would expect from the inscriptions of monu-

75 See, for example, Verr. 2.2.141: ... pecunia quam tibi ad statuam censores [sc. Sicilian magistrates] contulerunt; also ?? 137, 145, 148, 151, 152, 154, 157.

76 In ? 142 Cicero grants that Verres was still within the five years (legitimum illud quinquennium) allowed by the lex de pecuniis repetundis for the erection of the statues, but argues that if these sums are not included in the present accusation, no one will ever accuse him because of them in future if he escapes conviction now and that in any case no one could really believe that he was not going to divert into his own pocket the large sums collected ostensibly for the statues. In pro Flacco 55-59 Cicero had to defend Flaccus against a similar charge that he had taken funds left in Tralles for the purpose of cele- brating games in honor of Flaccus's father, who had been propraetor in Asia in the 90s. There, Cicero actually argues that since the games were never put on, the money could have been taken by Flaccus pater and could have been claimed by any heir (? 59, reading conlatam and ignoring Clark's supplement of uti). This is not the place to discuss how this passage can be brought into harmony with Cicero's argument in the Verrines.

77 In Clark's OCT the words a ... datas are written in small capitals as if they were a quotation of the actual inscription. However, not only is it difficult to think of any epigraphic parallels to a dedication in the passive voice, but the pronoun huic at the front of the sentence must also be construed with datas. Unless one imagines that Cicero spread his literal indirect quotation throughout the sentence, it is easier to assume that he is giving the sense of the dedications without trying to reproduce the wording exactly.



ments erected by collegia under the Empire.78 Since there is Republican attestation for the phrase de pecunia conlata in the sense of "from contributed money," it is easiest to explain the garbling on ILLRP 350 as a confused con- flation of that phrase and a fuller form with a relative clause in which the agent of the conferre was to be expressed.79 That is, the composer intended to expand de pecunia conlata as de pecunia quam collegia in commune contulerunt but left the verb in the formulaic participial form. The sense of the prepositional phrase would thus be "from money contributed (for this purpose) to the common fund by the collegia." What then does the inscription mean? Presumably the column supported an image of Sulla, and while the nominative in th

stuff about sulla

Documents

roman republic

jstor terms

jstor archive

terms conditions of

public personaauthors

public celebration

sullas precedent

military power