Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In Lucan′s second book, an old man looks back to the atrocities perpetrated in the civil strife of the eighties, chiefly on the return of Marius and Cinna to Rome in late 87 and on that of Sulla in 82 (lines 70–233). The episodes that Lucan briefly refers to are all otherwise known, and there seems no particular reason to assume that he is not drawing on Livy as his principal source, as he does for the events of his main narrative, the civil war between Pompey and Caesar. The scholia to the passage may be a different matter.
1 R. Pichon, Les Sources de Lucain(Paris, 1912); for recent slight modifications to the thesis see W. Rutz, 'Lucan's "Pharsalia" im Lichte der neuesten Forschung', ANRW32.3 (1985), 1457, esp. 1460ff. (Some influence from Sallust has been seen, but only where the poet's general ideas are concerned; Rutz thinks it unproved.)
2 Comm.(Leipzig) 1869, repr. (Hildesheim) 1967; Adn.(Leipzig) 1909, repr. 1969; see also Supplementum Adnotationumi-v, ed. G. A. Cavajoni (Milan, 1979) which contains the scholia in aADRV (of virtually no interest for this article); there are still MSS to explore. For the history of the scholia see H. C. Gotoff, The Transmission of the Text of Lucan in the Ninth Century(Cambridge, Mass., 1971); also J. E. G. Zetzel, Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity(New York, 1981).
3 B. M. Marti, ' Vacca in Lucanum', Speculum50 (1950), 198. Note that the MS evidence for Vacca's authorship of the life of Lucan attributed to him by modern scholars is weak. For the revival of interest in Lucan in the fourth century, see P. Wessner, ' Lucan, Statius und Juvenal bei den romischen Grammatikern', BPhW49 (1929), 296, 328.
4 Jerome, ad Rufin.1.16.
5 Ap. Usener, op. cit. 334 (scripiorum indiculus).But for the popularity of Sallust in late antiquity see H. Hagendahl, A ugustine and the Latin Classicsn (Gothenburg, 1967). 631 and Von Tertullian zu Cassiodor(Gothenburg, 1983), 80.
6 H. Szelest, 'Romische Autoren in den Handschriften C und W der "Adnotationes super Lucanum'", Eos66 (1978), 159.
7 A bibliography of Miinzer's work by H.-J. Drexhage is in A. Kneppe and J. Wiesehofer, Friedrich Munzer: Ein Althistoriker zwischen Kaiserreich und Nazionalso-ialismus(Bonn. 1983), 159.
8 See Kiibler, PWxm.507ff. s.v. lictor.
9 Livy, Ep.77; Val. Max. 2.10. 6; Veil. Pat. 2.19.3, Plut. Mar.39.1 oddly calls him a lirntvr,perhaps he had been so once. FIRA 21.LXH, Suet. Gramm.9; Lex Irnitana, JRS76 (1986) 153 (lines 17, 31).
10 Plut. Mar.38–9.
11 App. BC1.73: when Marius was about to sacrifice on the Capitol, as Ancharius thought this was a suitable occasion for reconciliation; cf. Plut. Mar.43.3, Florus 2.9.16 (without praenomen). Suppl.(see n. 2 above) also has Euanthius.
12 Dio 30–35.102.10. Marius stretches out his hand; Aug. CD3.27, quibus salutantibus dexteram porrigere noluisset.
13 Cic. pro Varenofrag. 5 Puccioni: C. Ancharius Rufusfuit e municipio Fulginate.It will be recalled that Marius enfranchised a cohort from Camerinum and individuals from Iguvium and Spoletium. See, however, T. P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate(Oxford. 1971), 212.
14 C. Garton, Personal Aspects of the Roman Theatre(Toronto, 1972), App. 1.
15 Cic. adfam.13.65, ad All.11.10.1. Histrio as a cognomenis not registered by I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina(Helsinki, 1965) though Hister and Histria are.
16 App. BC1.72, Flor. 2.9.14 = Aug. CD3.27, Klebs PW u2730 no. 17.
17 M. Crawford, RRC,no. 236.
18 Wiseman, op. cit. n. 13, 204 notes for example ILS45, where the office is held between the quaestorship and the aedileship.
19 Sail. BJ33–4; de vir. ill.73.1; G. Niccolini, IFastidei Trib. della Plebe(Milan, 1934). MRRtentatively gives him the cognomenTamphilus and refers to the scholiasts.
20 A. Keaveney, 'Who were the Sullani?', Klio66 (1984), 114.
21 Florus 2.9.26; H. Bulst, 'Cinnanum Tempus', Hist.13 (1964), 307 hesitantly accepts the victim of Sulla, as does Keaveney, op. cit. n. 20.
22 Cic. pro Clu.47, 53. A mistaken attempt to show a sister of Marius married to a Q. Baebius in T. F. Carney, A Biography ofC. Marius(1961), 8 n. 41, whence Wiseman, op. cit. n. 13, 31; but the couple on a N. Italian inscription (CILv 2462), paceJ. Zennari,' I vercelli dei Celti nella valle padana e l'invasione Cimbrica della Venezia', Ann. Bull. Gov. e Libr. civ. di Cremona4 (1952), fasc. 3, 1–78 (worthless), are locals of Gallic descent: see W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen(Berlin, 1933) 11, with overwhelming evidence for 'das bekannte Keltische Adjektivsuffix -akos'.
23 Gran. Licin. 35.23.
24 Cic. adfam.6.2.2.
25 Livy 5.35.3, Florus 1.13.1, 2.21.7 (comparing Sulla's capture of Rome in 87) and various other sources.
26 Val. Max. 9.2.2. Florus 2.21.14 has the head put on the table.
27 App. BC1.72 notes the rank, Val. Max. 8.9.2 and Plut. Mar.44.3^* the name.
28 Esp. C\c.de Or.3.10.
29 Florus 2.21.17.
30 U. W. Scholz, Der Redner M. Antonius(Diss. Erlangen-Niirnberg, 1962) is the only special study since the early PWarticle by Klebs.
31 See next note and other sources.
32 App. BC1.72, Plut. Mar.44.1.
33 E. Badian, 'Caepio and N o r b a n u s 'Hist.6 (1957), 318 ( = Studies in Gk. and R. Hist.[Oxford, 1964], 34); recently reasserted inChiron14 (1984), 122; Scholz and others, e.g. E. S. Gruen, JRS55 (1965), 67, disagree.
34 See A. W. Lintott,'The Offices of C. Flavius Fimbriain 86–5 B.c\Hist.20(1971), 696, and E. J. Weinrib, 'The Prosecution of Roman Magistrates', Phoenix22 (1968), esp. 43.
35 Cic. pro Rose. Am.33; cf. Val. Max. 9.11.2, accusare apudpopulum instituit.
36 Strabo 13.1.27, App. Mithr.52.
37 Cic. de Or.3.10, and ap. Asc. 25 St.; App. BC1.72.1; see Miinzer, PWxm.290, who prefers Livy, Ep.80, the son killed by Fimbria's horsemen, and the father kills himself. Cic. Tusc.5.55, the latter's decapitation.
38 Cic. deOr.3.10.
39 E. Rawson, 'Crassorum Funera', Latomus41 (1982), 540.
40 Gran. Licin. 35.22.
41 Possibly Coelius, if so still unknown.
42 Dio 30–35.102.12.
43 Perhaps Ap. Claudius Pulcher, probably legatus pro praetoreat Nola (see MRR),who was certainly exiled at this time, and Metellus Pius, surely also banished.
44 Veil. Pat. 2.24.2, though he dates the event later in the eighties, perhaps because Laenas and his colleagues were indicted, as he says, sub adventu Sullae.
45 Plut. Mar.45.1, Livy, Ep.80, Cic. ad Alt.5.20.4 (perhaps son of our man and stepson not son of the equesT. Gavius Caepio, Munzer, PWXIII.1639), ILLRP732, 745. Keaveney, op. cit. n. 20, misguidedly accepts both Sex. Licinius and Sex. Lucilius. Badian notes a Sex. Licinius in Livy, Ep. Oxy.55 (Studies,69 n. 17).
46 App. BC1.65: 7"cuoj Mdpios ereposmust be M. Marius Gratidianus, see MRR.
47 Diod. Sic. 38/9.17.1; Livy, Ep.86; Florus 2.21.21, amplexus aras,cf. Aug. CD3.28.
48 Cic. de Or.3.10: cf. de nat. deor.3.80, ante simulacrum Vestae.
49 Plut. Sulla28.4; App. BC1.87 – though this could be a deduction from the fact Marius took refuge there.
50 Plutarch'a account is very vivid, with detail on the weather, etc., and though vividness need not be a sign of truth in ancient historians, he did use Sulla's memoirs much in this Life.
51 App. BC1.87.
52 M. Hofmann, PW Suppl.vm.1175 s.v. Pomptinae paludes,Lucilius 110 Marx complains of the climb to Setia, but probably took the road to avoid an iter labosum atque lutosum,109.
53 Veil. Pat. 2.26, Pliny, HN33.16 - surely he was not carting the treasure around with him as L. Pareti, Storia di Romam.603 (Turin, 1953) supposes. He may have tried to block the Appia - note the bitter resistance of Norba to the Sullans later; perhaps a garrison as well as the locals were involved (App. BC1.94). For other fighting in the area see Hofmann, art. cit., n. 52.
54 App. Mithr.85.
55 W. Schur, Das Zeitaher des Marius und Sulla(Leipzig, 1942), 168 has Sulla come up the Appia and then follow Marius to Sacriportus 'am Siideingang der Trerusenge'; C. Lanzani, Mario e Silla(Catania, 1915) is the only scholar to place Sacriportus near Setia, but assumes a second battle near Signia (there is no evidence there were two); L. Pareti, loc. cit., n. 51, has Marius advance down the Latina to the bivioto Segni and then cross the Monti Lepini by the route to Privernum and Setia (south of the Velitrae-Praeneste road) but finally retreat again. A. Keaveney, 'Four Puzzling Passages in Appian', GIF12 (1981), 247–9, and Sulla. The Last Republican(London, 1982), 137 thinks Sulla's lieutenant Dolabella came up the Appia and took Setia, intending to rendezvous with Sulla near Signia; Plutarch does say that Sulla had difficulty joining up with Dolabella, who was encamped at some distance, as the Mariani held the roads.
56 So, less significantly, did Appian, translating it as Vepoj Atfii\v (BC1.87).
57 Virgil, Aen.7.796, with Servius ad he,quoting alii;Festus 424 L brings them to Rome from Sabine territory. The antiquarian sources try to equate the name with sacrati,but Dr N. Horsfall agrees that it is likely to derive from a place-name.
58 Plut. Sulla28.7 (from Fenestella and perhaps others).
59 Mommsen, CJLx.591 thinks Dion. Hal. 5.61 confuses them. It must be admitted that Appian, BC1.85, on Sulla's camp, confuses Canusium with, perhaps, Casilinum.
60 Usener, ad he.noted that all Latin authors use the form Afella, which is what the MSS. of Comm.clearly go back to, as against the Ofella of the Greek sources. Badian had to repeat the demonstration in JRS57 (1967), 227. Contra, C. Nicolet, L'Ordre Equeslren (Paris, 1974), 930.
61 Miinzer, PWxw.1814 for different versions.
62 Miinzer, PWxxn.1.37 (Pontius no. 21), cf. VIIA.1340 S.V. Tullus.
63 Not a confusion with Cinna and Marius in 87, if Florus 2.21.13 is right that they entered Rome quadruplici agmine(dubious). Livy, Ep.79 speaks of quattuor exercitusin 87, involving Sertorius and Carbo.
64 Veil. Pat. 2.27 (being of Campanian/Samnite origin he should have known). It is unlikely that the violently anti-Roman Pontius had become a senator, as F. Hinard, Les Proscriptions de la Rome Republicaine(Rome, 1985), 394 holds. 65 Sil. Ital. Punica10.148.
65 PWXXII.1.36; E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites(Cambridge, 1967), 9 n. 2.
66 Eutrop. 10.17.2, Ampel. 20.10, 28.2, de vir. ill.30.1. A Pontia at Telesia, ILS6510.
67 E. Figari, 'Sul frammento di Sallustio Hist.1.31 Maur.', Maia18 (1966), 167; Exup. 32, Cic. Cat.3.24, Aug. CD3.27.
68 Livy, Ep.88, Oros. 5.21.8–9, Val Max. 6.8.2.
69 G. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero's Brutus(Toronto, 1973), 140. Hinard, op. cit. (n. 64), 349 refuses to identify our Domitius with L. Ahenobarbus, as the latter's hostility to Pompey may be due to resentment at his brother's death; but he does not note Dio's words, see next n.
70 PWv.1334; Dio 41.11.2, accepted by E. S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic(Berkeley, 1974), 56.
71 Cic. pro Mil.22, Asc. 39 St., Schol. Bob. 119 St.; Cic. de Rep.1.18 uses adulescentesof quaestorii,cf. Val. Max. 7.5.2. If Cicero had been thinking of the 80s he would probably have said adulescentulusor admodum adulescens.
72 Caes. BC1.17, cf. Dio, loc. cit., Cic. ad An.9.6.2, 9.3, 1LLRP915.
73 Maurenbrecher, Praef. xv.
74 PWxm.2079, xiv. 1826, Diod. Sic. 38/9 4.2.
75 App. BC1.74, cf. Diod. Sic. loc. cit., prosecuted iv S-qxu.
76 A. H. M. Jones, The Criminal Courts of the Roman Republic and Principate(Oxford, 1972), chap. 1.
77 App. BC1.74.1.
78 See MRRn.52 and 59 for Gratidianus' cursus.
79 So E. S. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts(Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 233, referring to the scholiast but not discussing the penalty; 'the charge, if formal charge there was, must have been perduellio.''
80 W. A. Oldfather, 'Livy I 26 and the Supplicium de More Maiorum', TAP A39 (1908), 49; K. Latte, PWSuppl. vn 1599 s.v. Todesstrafe; M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World(London, 1977), 39. The tribunes had no lictors to oversee the punishment.
81 Cicero Rab.perd. reo15.
82 App. BC1.74; cf. Cic. de Or.3.9 (Tusc.5.56 his necessariiplead for him).
83 Oldfather, op. cit., n. 81.
84 E. Badian, 'Waiting for Sulla', JRS52 (1962), 47 ( = Studies216).
85 Schol. Bob. to pro Arch.,176 St.; cf. Cic. post red. in sen.9; Schol. Gronov. D 286 St. even thinks both Catuli were killed!
86 PWxin.2083: Merritt, Hesp.23 (1954), 254 (no. 36). Sumner's date of 84 for the younger Catulus' aedileship (op. cit. [n. 70], 116) cannot stand.
87 Oros. 5.21.7, Cic.In Tog. Cand.ap. Asc. 69 St.
88 See Maur. 1.44.; these words are echoed by Justin 21.4.7, Sen. de Ira3.18, Florus 2.21.26 etc.
89 There is no evidence that Catiline was married to a Gratidia, and confusion may be due to the fact that he is said elsewhere to have killed a brother or brother-in-law whom Comm. Pet.9 calls Q. Caecilius. See C. Nicolet, 'Arpinum, Aemilius Scaurus et les Tullii Cicerones', REL45 (1967), 290; B. Marshall, 'Catiline and the Execution of Marius Gratidianus', CQ35 (1985), 14. But Miinzer and others accept the relationship.
90 Sail. BC35, Oros. 6.3.1; cf. Cic. pro Sull.81.
91 Cic. In Tog. Cand.ap. Asc. 65, 69 St., Plut. Sulla32.2.
92 Miinzer, PWxin.2073, correcting v.1326 from Cic. ap. Asc. Corn,n.62 St. (the younger Catulus' avunculusDomitius can be his aunt's husband). Servilia in 70, Cic. Verr.2.2.24.
93 Plut. Sulla HAhas 12,000.
94 Strabo 5.4.11 249C, 3–4000, App. BC1.93, Plut. Sulla30.2 8000 (Salmon, op. cit. [n. 66], 386 thinks 8000 may be a confusion with the prisoners taken at Sacriportus, for whom the same number is given).
95 Dio 30–35.102.7. Salmon, op. cit. (n. 66), 373 has Metellus perhaps fighting the Lucani before coming up to Nola, but does not say where he gets the idea. The legatimight not wish to traipse too far south; they were needed in Rome.
96 Cic. ad/am.9.21.3.
97 App. BC1.96; cf. Livy, Ep.89, Cossyra quam appulerat; P. Greenhalgh, Pompey, the Roman Alexander(London, 1980), 22. " Oros. 5.21.11.
98 See esp. A. La Penna, 'Per la Ricostruzione delle Historiaedi Sallustio', SIFC35 (1963), 5 and Sallustio e la'Rivoluzione' Romana(Milan 1968), 247ff.
99 Frags, i.ll, 13 Maur. For advancing pessimism, F. Klingner, 'liber die Einleitung der
100 HislorienSallusts', Hermes63 (1928), 165 (but there was rest from discord between the Second
101 Punic War and the Gracchi).
102 Frags. 1.12, 18 Maur.
103 Frags. 1.24, 25 Maur.
104 N. Zorzetti, pref. to his ed. (Leipzig, 1982), holds Exuperantius' errors to be so gross he must have worked from an epitome, perhaps of Livy. But Sallust is once quoted (and no one else) and the style is mock-Sallustian. Hist.1.29 Maur., libertatis insueti,probably refers to the fugitivi.
105 Auson. Ep.22 ad Nepotem Ausonium64: civili mixtum mavorte duellum.
106 Sail. BJ95.2.
107 Aug. CD2.18, after quoting the Historiae(1.16 Maur.) says dicit deinde plura Sallustius de Sulla et vitiis ceteraque foeditate rei publicae;cf. 22, cuius vitam, mores, facta describente Sallustius.It is possible that Aug. is also reflecting Sallust in his immediately preceding reference to the wars of Marius, Cinna and Carbo, crudeliter gesta crudeliusque finita.Cf. 2.23, which calls Marius cruentissimum auctorem bellorum civilium atque gestorem,etc.
108 E. Rawson, 'L. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century B.C.', CQ29 (1979), 327.
109 Op. cit. n. 90.
110 A. R. Hands, 'Sallust and Dissimulatio\ JRS49 (1959), 56.
111 See esp. H. Bennett, Cinna and his Times(Diss. Chicago, 1923); Carney, op. cit. (n. 22), 66–8. For Livy's harsh judgement of Marius in the eighties, H. M. Hine,' Livy's Judgement on Marius', LCM3 (1978), 83.
112 H. Peter, HRRI Sisenna frag. 129 (in the battle between Cinna and Pompeius Strabo on the Janiculum in 87). Frag. 138 vitam cum dolore el insigni cruciatu carnificatus amisitclearly refers to an individual atrocity - but the fugitivimight be to blame.
113 Cn. Domitius was Antony's friend; the senator Licinius Damasippus who perished in Africa in 46 (BAfr.89) but whose children were pardoned by Caesar may be a son of the pr. 82 (adopted by a Licinius and so able to enter political life in spite of Sulla's rules about the sons of his enemies), while the art dealer and land speculator (probably Junius, i.e. retaining his family name) Damasippus could be another son, forced to take up a dubious profession; see E. Rawson, in Studies in Roman Property,ed. M. I. Finley (Cambridge, 1976), 101, against D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature(New York, 1976), 46.
114 But R. Syme, Sallust(Cambridge, 1964), probably exaggerates the influence of the Triumviral period on Sallust's work.
