Sulla and the Gods: Religion, Politics, and Propaganda in the Autobiography of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Fiona Mary Noble Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of History, Classics and Archaeology Newcastle University June 2014 Abstract Lucius Cornelius Sulla wrote an autobiographical account of his controversial career which, although it was left incomplete on his death in 78 BC, nonetheless had an incalculably significant influence on writers during the subsequent centuries. The Autobiography has not survived intact, but the twenty-three remaining fragments reveal a great deal about the original structure and contents of the work. Through the medium of commentaries on each of the fragments, this thesis considers the function and role of this lost text in Sulla’s self- representation strategy. Sulla was a man who was intensely interested in and concerned with managing the ways in which he was perceived both by his contemporaries and by posterity; although the evidence for this strategy is diverse and problematic, it is nevertheless possible to reconstruct the most important ways in which Sulla engaged with different groups. Through coinage, inscriptions, monuments, and nomenclature, Sulla exerted great effort in establishing a public image of himself as a man favoured by the gods, justified in his actions, and whose actions had brought great prosperity to Rome; this was so intricate and thorough that it can be termed ‘propaganda’. It was in the Autobiography, however, that Sulla was able to develop these themes. By presenting a comprehensive reconsideration of his life and career, Sulla was able to create a complex character portrait of himself, and engaged in self-justification, confronting many of the negative interpretations of his actions that had already begun to develop. Through analysis of the fragments of the Autobiography, therefore, this thesis asks important questions concerning the nature of self-representation and propaganda in the late Republic and the role of religious discourse within political negotiation in this period, and offers new insights into the intellectual world of Rome in the early first century BC. i Acknowledgements Thanks are owed to several people who have helped me enormously in the preparation of this thesis. Harriet Flower, Tony Ñaco del Hoyo, Federico Santangelo and Alexander Thein very kindly shared unpublished articles with me, which informed the discussion on a number of topics. A particular debt is owed to Tim Cornell and Christopher Smith, who were extremely generous in allowing me access to their edition of the fragments of Sulla’s Autobiography, from the then-forthcoming Fragments of the Roman Historians (ed. T. Cornell, Oxford 2013), eighteen months before its eventual publication. This invaluable study allowed me to compose my commentaries without covering the same ground as their work and, although we have used the fragments of the Autobiography in very different ways, observing their methods of writing commentaries on this material was exceedingly helpful. Several colleagues at Newcastle discussed specific matters with me, including David Creese, Tony Spawforth, and Jaap Wisse, and I found inspiration aplenty in the lively Classics and Ancient History Research Seminar series. Thanks are also owed to Claudia Baldoli, Alan Beale, Barbara Cochrane, Tim Kirk, and Susanna Phillippo for their kind assistance and encouragement. Moral support in abundance was provided by the school’s postgraduate community– the PhD office was a great source of entertainment and advice, in a fantastic scholarly atmosphere. The librarians of the Robinson Library and the School office staff (especially Sandra Fletcher) were extremely helpful. The greatest thanks are owed to my supervisor, Federico Santangelo, whose enthusiasm, encouragement and expertise made my PhD a thoroughly enjoyable experience. There is no question that this thesis would not have seen completion without his help, which was offered freely and with the utmost wisdom and humour throughout my studies at Newcastle. Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my parents, who have supported me throughout my education in more ways than I could possibly count. ii Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... v Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 The development of autobiography in the late Republic .............................................. 1 The Autobiography in Sulla’s career ........................................................................... 16 The language of Sulla’s Autobiography ...................................................................... 22 The ancient title of Sulla’s Autobiography .................................................................. 24 Why Autobiography? .................................................................................................. 28 The fragments of Sulla’s Autobiography .................................................................... 30 Scholarship on Sulla’s Autobiography: a brief review ................................................ 32 Aims, intentions, and methodology ............................................................................. 40 Commentaries ................................................................................................................. 44 Commentary on F1P – Plut. Luc. 1.3 (= F1S, F1C) ................................................ 44 Commentary on F2P – Gell. 1.12.16 (= F2S, F2C) ................................................. 48 Commentary on F3P – Gell. 20.6.3 (= F3S, F3C) ................................................... 57 Commentary on F4P – Plut. Sull. 4.1-3 (= F7S, F4C) ............................................. 64 Commentary on F5P – Plut. Mar. 25.4-5 (= F8S, F5C) and F6P – Plut. Mar. 26.2-4 (= F9S, F6C) ............................................................................................................ 69 Commentary on F7P – Plut. Sull. 5 (= F10S, F7C) ................................................. 75 Commentary on F8P – Plut. Sull. 6.4-5 (= F11, 12, 13, 14a, and 15S, F8C) .......... 84 Commentary on F9P – Cic. De Div. 1.33.72 (= F17S, F9C) ................................. 124 Commentary on F10P – Pliny, NH 22.6.12 (= F16S, F10C) ................................. 131 Commentary on F10aP – Plut. Mor. 786d = An sen. res pub. ger. sit 6.1 (= F26S, F11C) ..................................................................................................................... 137 Commentary on F11P – Plut. Mar. 35.2-3 (= F18S, F12C) .................................. 141 Commentary on F12P – Plut. Sull. 14.1-2 (= F19S, F13C) and F13P – Plut. Sull. 14.6 (= F20S, F14C) .............................................................................................. 149 Commentary on F14P – Plut. Sull. 16.1 (= F21S, F15C) ...................................... 156 Commentary on F15P – Plut. Sull. 19.4-5 (= F22S, F16C) ................................... 158 iii Commentary on F16P – Plut. Sull. 17.1-2 (= F4S, F17C) ..................................... 175 Commentary on F17P – Plut. Sull. 23.1-2 (= F23S, F18C) ................................... 181 Commentary on F18P – Plut. Sull. 27.3-6 (= F24S, F20C) ................................... 192 Commentary on F19P – Plut. Sull. 28.8 (= F25S, F21C) ...................................... 206 Commentary on F20P – Priscian 9 p. 476 H (= F5S, F22C) ................................. 207 Commentary on F21P – Plut. Sull. 37.1-2 (= F6S, F23C) ..................................... 212 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 224 Appendix: F17aP = Tac. Ann. 4.56.2: a false attribution .............................................. 234 Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 238 iv Abbreviations ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, 1972-. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.Berlin: G. Reimer. 1862-. FGRH Jacoby, F. (1923-) Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Leiden: Brill. FRH Cornell, T. J. (ed.) (2013) The Fragments of the Roman Historians. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ILLRP Degrassi, A. (1963) Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae. Florence: La Nuova Italia. ILS Dessau, H. (1892-1916) Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann. LS Liddell, H. G., Scott, R. (1889) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon. 7th edition. LTUR Steinby, E. M. (ed.) (1993-2000) Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae. Rome: Edizioni Quasar. MRR Broughton, T. R. S. (1951) The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. 2 vols. New York: American Philological Association. RDGE Sherk, R. K. (1969) Roman Documents of the Greek East: senatus consulta and epistulae to the age of Augustus. Baltimore: The