the strange case of sulla's brother

The Strange Case of Sulla's BrotherAuthor(s): Lee E. ReamsSource: The Classical Journal, Vol. 82, No. 4 (Apr. - May, 1987), pp. 301-305Published by: The Classical Association of the Middle West and SouthStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297998 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 06:23

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].

.

The Classical Association of the Middle West and South is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to The Classical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.51 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 06:23:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=camws

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3297998?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE STRANGE CASE OF SULLA'S BROTHER

Sulla the dictator had at least two siblings, a sister and a brother. The existence of the sister is securely attested by the fact that Sulla had a nephew named Nonius who stood unsuccessfully for office in 88 B.C.' The brother, however, is a strange case on two counts. First, despite the prominence of L. Sulla, his brother left no trace in the historical record in his own right, not even as a parasite battening upon L. Sulla's confiscations and general good fortune. Second, the dictator's brother has been consistently misidentified despite express evidence to the contrary. Most scholars who have discussed the matter take him to be the father of the two Catilinarians whom Sallust (Cat. 17.3) describes as P. et Ser. Sullae Ser. filii. They have thus opted to follow the suggestion of F. Miinzer rather than the testimony of Dio 36.44.3 that P. Sulla, the consul designate of 65 whom Cicero later defended in the Pro Sulla, was the dictator's nephew.2 The aim here is to argue that the father of the consul designate was far more likely to be the dictator's brother and, by so doing, to explain the brother's absence from the historical record.

Let us begin by comparing P. Sulla the consul designate with the two sons of Ser. Sulla. The former began his controversial career by "brandishing" his kinship with Sulla the dictator during the proscriptions, while in 80 he became one of the triumvirs of the Sullan colony at Pompeii. He held a praetorship by 68 and married none other than Pompey's sister. In 66, both he and P. Autronius Paetus were elected to the consulship of 65, yet both were convicted under the lex Calpurnia de ambitu, barred from holding office and expelled from the Senate. In 62, P. Sulla was accused of being a Catilinarian but was successfully defended by Cicero himself. He later repaid the orator ill by allowing Clodius to use his house as the field headquarters of his gang, however. The civil war saw him as a staunch Caesarian who guarded Caesar's camp and commanded the right wing of his army at Pharsalus. He died shortly thereafter, either at the hands of bandits or as the result of eating too much.3

IPlut. Sul. 10. This Nonius was undoubtedly Sex. Nonius Sufenas, praetor of 81: W. Drumann- P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms2 (Hildesheim 1964) 2.436, 559. H. Bennett, Cinna and His Times (Menasha, Wis., 1923) 4 and n. 18; M. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge, UK, 1974) 1.445-46.

2E Miinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius," no. 385, 1518. Concurring with him are P. McGushin, C. Sallustius Crispus, Bellum Catilinae: A Commentary (Leiden 1977) 124; A. Keaveney, Sulla: The Last Republican (London 1982) 24-25 n. 11. Broughton, MRR 2.489 and 157, is inconsistent: 2.489 states that Dio was wrong, but 2.157 offers the filiation for the consul designate as "P.? f. L. n.," meaning that his grandfather was Sulla Felix's father. Drumann-Groebe, GR2 is also inconsistent: 2.360-61, 2.436. J. Linderski, "Cicero and Sallust on Vargunteius," Historia 12 (1963) 512 n. 10, confuses the consul designate with the conspirator P. Sulla.

3Proscriptions and Pompeii: Cic. Off. 2.29, Sul. 60-62. Praetorship: Broughton, MRR 2.138, 141 n. 4. Marriage: Cic. Q. Frat. 3.3.2. Loss of consulship: Cic. Sul. 11, 49-50, Fin. 2.62; Schol. Bob. 77-84 Stangl. Trial: Cic. Sul. Association with Clodius: Cic. Att. 4.3.3. Caesarian: App. BCiv 2.76; Caes. BCiv 3.51.1, 89.2. Death: Cic. Fam. 15.17.2.

301



302 LEE E. REAMS

Compared with P. Sulla the consul designate, the two conspirators P. and Ser. Sulla cut very sorry figures indeed. All that we know of them is that they were Catilinarians, were presumably of senatorial rank, and were convicted and banished under the lex Plautia de vi.4 Cicero (Sul. 6) classes them with such relatively minor conspirators as M. Porcius Laeca and C. Cornelius as men that neither he nor anyone else would defend. There is no indication that either of these men was prominent during the proscriptions, received any especial favor from the dictator, entered into any splendid marriages, or ever rose beyond the quaestorships that had presumably accorded them seats in the Senate. Indeed, dissatisfaction with the progress of their careers seems the reason why they joined the conspiracy.5 They certainly appear to have been little men saddled with a big name who for that reason became second-rate conspirators.

The prominence of P. Sulla the consul designate argues strongly that he was more likely the nephew of the dictator, while the obscurity of the brothers P. et Ser. Sulla indicates that they were distant relatives of the great Sulla at best.

Yet there is more. When the consul designate was prosecuted in 62, he should have been an easy mark as an abortive consul, expelled senator and brother-in-law of that bogeyman of the boni, Pompey. Suddenly, however, this same P. Sulla had no lack of defenders. Cicero (Sul. 5) calls them the "ornamenta ac lumina rei publicae." They included Q. Hortensius Hortalus, consul of 69; L. Julius Caesar, consul of 64; M. Valerius Messalla Niger, future consul of 61; the Claudii Marcelli; Faustus Sulla, son of the dictator; C. Memmius, son-in-law of the dictator; and Q. Pompeius Rufus, grandson of the dictator. Yet Hortensius and Messalla had their Sullan connections, too. The former, a military tribune of 89, probably served under L. Sulla in the Social War. He was certainly connected with the Metellan circle, as Sulla was, and apparently served as quaestor while Sulla was in power. M. Messalla was none other than the brother of Valeria, the dictator's widow.6 Against this formidable array, the prosecutor L. Manlius Torquatus was supported only by C. Cornelius, the son of a Catilinarian (Cic. Sul. 51-52). The defense of the disgraced P. Sulla seems to have become both an optima causa and a Sullana causa. As such it seems almost a dress rehearsal for the trial of M. Aemilius Scaurus, stepson of the dictator, eight years later. The latter saw the extraordinary combination of Clodius, Cicero and Milo appear for the defense, along with (again) Hortensius, M. Messalla Niger, M. Claudius Marcellus, Faustus Sulla and numerous others. Faustus was the half-brother of Scaurus, while Milo was the second husband of Scaurus' half-sister Fausta. Another supporter of Scaurus was a second C. Memmius - he happened to be the

4McGushin, Commentary 124; Drumann-Groebe, GR2 2.445; Miinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius," nn. 385, 389, 1518, 1521.

5So suggested by E. S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley 1974) 420, and Thomas N. Mitchell, Cicero: The Ascending Years (New Haven 1979) 227.

6Supporters: Cic. Sul. 3-6, 13-14, 20, 22, 51; Schol. Bob. 77 Stangl; cf. Gruen, Generation 283-85. Dictator's relatives: Drumann-Groebe, GR2 2.360-61, 432, 433-36. Hortensius: Broughton, MRR 2.35, 573; Gruen, Generation 335 n. 116. Messalla: Plut. Sul. 35; Gruen, op. cit.



THE STRANGE CASE OF SULLA'S BROTHER 303

stepson of P. Sulla the consul designate. One way of accounting for the participation of Clodius is to recall his association with the consul designate three years earlier.7

In other words, we have two trials featuring a relative of the dictator as defendant and each was defended by the following same men: Cicero, Hortensius, Marcellus, Messalla and Faustus. Each had other supporters who had links to the dictator. P. Sulla had Q. Pompeius Rufus and one Memmius, both grandsons of the dictator; Scaurus had Milo, son-in-law of the dictator, and the other Memmius, stepson of P. Sulla. Both defendants enjoyed the virtually unanimous support of the leading men. Further, it is clear that none of these men tried to defend the brothers P. and Ser. Sulla, or else Cicero could not have asked rhetorically who would defend them. If they had, then Torquatus could have rejoined in a devastating fashion. It seems almost inconceivable that all these men who had connections with the dictator would have stood aside idly while his nephews went off into exile but rallied behind a more distant relative of his who had been stripped of his consulship and Senate seat.

In truth, the theory that P. Sulla the consul designate was Sulla's nephew is the only one that adequately explains his strange career. If P. Sulla was the dictator's nephew, then he would have been his closest male adult relative and the immediate political heir among his kinsmen.8 That truly would have been a degree of kinship to brandish like a weapon during the proscriptions. It would also explain why he was a triumvir at Pompeii in 80 when he was only about twenty-seven years old.9 Further, it would account for the radically different results of his two trials in the 60s. A nephew of Sulla who gained the consulship might well have dreams of dominatio; once he had been stripped of his consulship and expelled from the Senate, then he was safely cut down to size yet would be still a useful ally and, as the nephew of the great Sulla, a man of special status. The fact that being a blood kinsman of the dictator gave one special status is amply demonstrated by the selection of Faustus Sulla to rebuild the Senate House and the according to him of the privilege of renaming it the Curia Cornelia (Dio 40.50.2). No other mere ex-quaestor would have

7Ascon. 19-20, 28 Clark. Clodius: Cic. Scaur. 37. The various Memmii are untangled by G. V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero's "Brutus" (Toronto 1973) 85-90. On the Scaurus trial, see Gruen, Generation 332-37.

8Excluding his brother for reasons that will become apparent, the dictator's other male relatives were Sex. Nonius Sufenas (see n. 1 above); a son who predeceased him as an infant (Plut. Sul. 37; Sen. Cons. ad Marc. 12.6); and Faustus. The last was born only in 86/85: Sumner, Orators 88. His son-in-law was murdered by the Sulpicians in 88, so his grandson Q. Pompeius Rufus must have been born in or around that year. Nonius' unsuccessful bid for office in 88 and his failure to rise beyond the praetorship of 81 (a year in which no relative of the dictator could have lost an election) may testify to his lack of political ability. Accordingly, P. Sulla would have been the dictator's political heir until Faustus came of age.

9Based on the assumption that P. Sulla was elected to the consulship suo anno, he would have been born around 107. Considering his service at Pharsalus, he could not have been very much older than that. He may have been two years younger, however, if the theory of a special patrician cursus is correct: in general, see E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford 1964) 151-52.



304 LEE E. REAMS

received such honors. Finally, one can reasonably assume that Caesar did not give command of his right wing at Pharsalus to a Sulla solely because of his military record. The assignment of the nephew of Sulla Felix to that post would have been an outstanding propaganda move. 10

Compared with this, what has the theory that the two conspirators were the nephews of the dictator to offer? Nothing. It rests upon no more than the possibility that Dio might have confused the two P. Sullae, and the authority of Miinzer. Yet even Muinzer very properly lacked full confidence in his own theory, for he closes his discussion with the admission that "das Umgekehrte ist ebensowohl mdglich." In other words, even Miinzer thought it was equally possible that the consul designate was the dictator's nephew. That certainly provides no warrant for stating flatly that Ser. Sulla the Elder was the dictator's brother. Worse, that idea seems still weaker when one recalls that it is Sallust who describes the two conspirators as "Ser. filii." This colorless description is extremely curious in the light of Sallust's view that Catiline was inspired in his nefarious schemes by the pernicious example of Sulla Felix (Sall. Cat. 5.6). That view would have received a powerful emotional boost had Sallust been able to describe the two brothers as nepotes dictatoris. One can safely assume that few of Sallust's readers would have known who Ser. Sulla the Elder had been and that still fewer would have cared, but calling his sons the nephews of the dictator would have said exactly who they were and would have fitted Sallust's argument. Instead, he merely wrote "Ser. filii" in order to distinguish P. Sulla the conspirator from the consul designate. It is hard to believe that Sallust would have missed such an opportunity to flay the dictator and advance his own argument simultaneously. The two conspirators were at the most only the dictator's second cousins."

Having established that the consul designate was the dictator's nephew, we must now ask what of the consul designate's father? Only three praenomina are known to have been in use among the Sullae at the time when the consul designate's father would have been born: Publius, Servius and Lucius. With Lucius preempted by the future dictator himself, we are left with Publius or Servius as the praenomen of the dictator's brother. Servius seems extremely

10Cf. R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 66 and n. 3. 11Miinzer, RE s.v. "Cornelius," no. 385, 1518. Sulla Felix and Catiline: cf. McGushin,

Commentary 62-64; L. Anheit, "Charakterdarstellung bei Sallust," Neue Jahrbiicher 43 (1919) 43; R. Syme, Sallust (Berkeley 1964) 124. Second cousins: the closest that they presumably could have been, assuming their father was the son of the great Sulla's uncle. The fact that the dictator's father was named Lucius rather than Publius or Servius, the only two praenomina known among the Sullae up to that time, suggests that he could have had two brothers bearing those names. A moneyer namedtP. Sulla was active around the middle of the second century, and he may have been either the dictator's uncle or his grandfather: see Crawford, RRC 1.250. Another theory is that the moneyer may have been the son of Ser. Sulla, praetor of 175. The great Sulla was a descendant of that praetor's elder brother, P. Sulla the praetor of 186. On this particular theory, see L. E. Reams, The First Fifty Years of Sulla: A Reassessment (Diss. University of Southern California 1985) 28-29. The two later Ser. Sullae, the conspirator and his father, could have been descended from Ser. Sulla, praetor of 175. If so, then they would have been descended from the dictator's granduncle, at the most. For the ancestry of the dictator, see the stemma in RE s.v. "Cornelius;" 1515, "Cornelius," no. 379, 1517; Drumann-Groebe, GR2 2.360-64; Crawford, RRC 1.250; Reams, Sulla 12-31.



THE STRANGE CASE OF SULLA'S BROTHER 305

unlikely on account of Sallust's use of "Ser. filii" to describe the two conspirators. The only reason for Sallust to have used that description was to distinguish P. Sulla the conspirator from P. Sulla the consul designate. If both P. Sullae were the sons of men named Ser. Sulla, then "Ser. filii" would have been of no help at all in distinguishing the two homonymous men, and Sallust would have used a different method in such a case. Accordingly, Servius should be eliminated from consideration, leaving us with Publius as the most likely praenomen for Sulla's brother. Further, Publius was the most common praenomen among the Sullae and, indeed, is the name that has been tentatively accredited to the consul designate's father elsewhere.12

There remains the issue of why the dictator's brother made no appearance in the historical record, however. We happen to know the consul designate had a half-brother named L. Caecilius Rufus. This man tried to reinstate P. Sulla the consul designate in the Senate and served as a praetor in 57. The latter date means that he was born no later than the year 96. The date of P. Sulla's abortive consulship argues that he was born around 107. Clearly, P. Sulla's mother had remarried at some point between 107 and 96. When this is combined with the absence of the dictator's brother from the historical record, the logical inference is that the man died sometime between 107 and 96. The great Sulla did not even become praetor until 97 and did not become a man of consequence until 89.13 In short, Sulla's brother died before L. Sulla had become famous and so had no opportunity to share in the great Sulla's notoriety and fortune.

In summation, then, we can say that the identification of the father of the two Catilinarians as Sulla's brother does not stand up under scrutiny. Both the express testimony of Dio 36.44.3 and all other indications make the father of the consul designate of 65 the brother of the dictator. This identification helps to explain the vicissitudes of the consul designate's career and also why the dictator's brother left no mark in history. In contrast, the alternative view that Dio was mistaken and that the two conspirators were actually Sulla's nephews explains nothing at all. Once one accepts Dio's testimony, however, then the strange case of Sulla's brother is no longer so strange.

LEE E. REAMS California State University Fullerton

12For praenomina, see references at end of n. 11 above. Both Broughton, MRR 2.157, and Sumner, Orators 189, give the tentative filiation "P. f." for the consul designate.

'3Half-brother: Ascon. 83, 85-86 Clark; Cic. Sul. 63-65. His praetorship: Ascon. 48 Clark; Cic. Mil. 38, Red. Sen. 22; CIL I2.2.761. His year of birth has been determined on the assumption that he held his praetorship suo anno. He could not have been much older than thirty-nine at the time, considering his mother's circumstances. L. Sulla's praetorship is now securely dated to 97, thanks to Badian, Studies 158-60; a notable dissenter is A. N. Sherwin-White, "Ariobarzanes, Mithridates and Sulla," Classical Quarterly 27 (1977) 173-83, who argues that Sulla was praetor in 95. Sulla in 89: T. F Carney, A Biography of C. Marius2 (Chicago 1970) 53 n. 247.



the strange case of sulla's brother

Documents