|
With Caesar Strabo eliminated from the equation, the issue of the Mithridatic command lay squarely between Sulla, the designated commander, and Marius, for whose revival Caesar’s defeat was a catalyst. Sulpicius, without known street-activity in his past, had quite suddenly created a force that defeated Caesar’s. Without positing too much at this stage of events, it is fair to say that the defeat of Caesar was pleasing to Marius and the equestrian former iudices and that they were prepared to think well of Sulpicius, who had achieved so much of what they wished. This is to put it at its minimum. On the other side, Sulpicius’ friends the consuls Q. Pompeius and Sulla were pleased enough to be rid of Caesar’s campaign for the consulate of 87 and for the war in the East. Other leading senators will have felt differendy: Caesar’s brother Lucius (consul 90, censor 89) and his half-brother Q. Catulus (consul 102) would understandably not rejoice with Sulpicius in his victory on the streets. M. Antonius (consul 99, censor 97) had been prosecuted under the lex Varia and not convicted, though he spent some time away from Rome in 90-89.[1] P. Crassus (consul 97, censor 89) was colleague of L. Caesar in the censorship. All those who were opponents or potential victims of Q. Varius or close to them, all those who were among the nobiles who diminished equestrian participation in the courts through the lex Plaulia, were at this time likely friends of Caesar Strabo and hostile to the organised equites—and Marius. They are the principes most likely to have supported the consul Sulla with sententiae when he entered Rome in arms shortly after this time. Certainly Marius thought so when he ordered the deaths of the above-mentioned four ex-consuls and Caesar Strabo on his re-entry into Rome at the end of 87.[2] These men will have been disinclined to support Sulpicius’ further agenda in 88. Again, this is to put it at its minimum. What support could Sulpicius still count on? L. Marcius Philippus (consul 91) had given hostile evidence against some of the Varian victims in 90,[3] including Q. Pompeius; he would be promoting the break up of Drusus’ circle: the quarrel of Sulpicius and Caesar was grist to his mill. Why not Sulpicius versus Pompeius as the next step on Philippus’ disintegrative agenda? Q. Mucius Scaevola, the Augur (consul 117) and L. Valerius Flaccus (consul 100, censor 97) had attested links with Marius.[4] And of course there was Sulpicius’ close friend Q. Pompeius the consul still on board! So it was thought. The chief plank in Sulpicius’ platform needs no general discussion here. The proposal to enrol the new citizens in all thirty-five Roman electoral tribes was bold and statesmanlike.[5] In the present context three points need to be made: 1) the effect—and perhaps the intention—of the proposal was to outflank the Caesars, whose law conferred citizenship on the Italian ciuitates but restricted the weight of their vote; 2) on an acceptance of Cicero’s claim that Sulpicius and the consul Q. Pompeius were politically conjoined down to the moment of their quarrel,[6] Sulpicius counted on support from the consuls, Pompeius and his adfinis Sulla, in steering their joint programme through the senate; 3) the reform would make Marius master of the enlarged comitia.1:> Sulpicius could live with that. Neither his opponents in the Senate nor his friends the consuls could be expected to. 69 See n. 63. [2] Appian BC 1.71-74; Livy Per. 80; Velleius Paterculus 2.22. [3] Cicero Brutus 304. If Philippus (with or without others) were to support Sulpicius’ proposal at this point, he would drive a wedge between Pompeius, against whom Philippus had given evidence like an accuser, and Pompeius’ friend Sulpicius, who had to be delivered somehow to Marius. It is to be recalled that it was Philippus who as consul had threatened to seek an alternative source of consilium publicum in 91 (Cicero De oratore 3.2) and who at a later time improvised a delightful variation on the theme when he suggested sending out the young Pompey pro consulibus in 77 (Cicero Pro Lege Manilla 62). What Philippus did tactically, Sulpicius would do with moral passion. [4] Scaevola’s grand-daughter was married to Marius’ son (Cicero De oratore 1.24 and 66; Ad Atticum 12.49.2) and Rutilius Rufus termed L. Valerius Flaccus (consul 100, censor 97) more servant than colleague to Marius (Plutarch Marius 28.5). [5] G. De Sanctis must here be singled out honoris causa (La guerra sociale [1976] a fragment of his incomplete Storia dei Romani, 106-127, esp. 109-113). [6] De amicitia 2. More information please go to preliminary speculations
Related Articles -
the, Mithridatic,
|
