Colin Flynn

Dr. Banchich

Roman History Classics 104

Paper II

The life of Lucius Cornelius Sulla was not only one of great achievement, but great

vanity. It is because of this that he composed twenty two books that are Memoirs of his personal

history. The Memoirs themselves have been lost in time, but through the publications of Plutarch

and other authors of the period the work can still be studied. It contains several points of

emphases as well as biases pertaining both to Gaius Marius and Sulla himself that are crucial to

its understanding. Plutarch references the Memoirs frequently in Roman Lives, but evidence

exists which suggests that he may have relied more heavily on their accounts then is

documented.

Before one can attempt to construe the meaning of the Memoirs, it's important to first

evaluate and clarify the biases that existed due to Sulla being their author. The first of which

being the enmity that Sulla had for Gaius Marius; This can first be seen in Marius when it is

reported that Sulla who was fighting in the battle had reportedly accused Marius of deploying

his troops in such a manner that he could claim the victory for his own.1 This is one of the

earliest accounts Plutarch utilized from the Memoirs, and shows that from the very beginning

Sulla and Marius clashed. This sentiment is reinforced when Sulla creates a surplus of supplies in

Catalus’ army such that some could be spared to Marius' men. Sulla states that Marius was

greatly irritated by this action rather than thankful.2 The final piece of evidence to support this is

1 Marius 25, p. 145. Sulla and Catalus agree that Marius has chosen his position for benefit.2 Sulla 5, p. 178. Marius is frustrated rather than grateful for Sulla’s actions

the ring which Sulla wore; it depicted Bocchus’ surrender of Jugurtha which infuriated Marius.3

This bias is crucial to the understanding of the Memoirs for its relation to the negative portrayal

of Marius throughout them.

Additional biases which exist in the Memoirs are that of Sulla's great favor for himself

and his troops. Sulla knew not only that he was a great leader blessed by fortune, but one whom

his armies believed in entirely. The first example of this can be found in Sulla. After sharing with

his army a dream he had in which he was warned of catastrophe the following day, Sulla

determines that they must face the prospect of battle immediately with confidence to avoid the

aforementioned disaster. Poor conditions however caused Sulla to declare that they should set up

camp instead. Marius hoping to take advantage of this rode confidently towards them but Sulla's

forces believing strongly in their commander's dream hurled themselves at the enemy without

fear.4 The bias expands beyond this however, Sulla often provides figures for his triumphs in

battles that can be inferred as far more fictional than factual. In this battle Sulla claims to have

lost only twenty three men while killing twenty thousand enemies and claiming eight thousand

prisoners.5 These biases will be held at a greater importance later when evaluating Plutarch as a

critical source in light of the Memoirs.

From piecing together the fragments and passages of Sulla's Memoirs that exist in

Plutarch and additional outside sources it’s clear that he had planned for his writing to

accomplish a number of things. These points of emphasis attempt to make an account of Sulla's

career, clarify some of his actions to the Roman people, and share the aspects of his life that can

be credited to fortune above all else.

3 Sulla 6, p. 179. The ring was used when sealing envelopes and angered Marius.4 Sulla 29, p. 206. They placed their javelins in the ditch and took up swords.5 Sulla 29, p. 206. The stats are unrealistic and suggest Sulla is heightening his career through lies.

The first example of Sulla attempting to explain his actions comes in regards to the

account of him fleeing the public forum which was invaded by Marius, and then hiding in

Marius' home. In the Memoirs Sulla denies hiding in the home of Marius and instead explains

how he was surrounded, led into Marius' home and then forced to enact certain political

measures in exchange for his safety.6 The decree he was coerced into rescinding was the

suspension of public business. It is clear that Sulla wanted the Roman people to know the true

reason behind this action of his. Another example of this is Sulla's attempt to explain his actions

during the attack on Rome. He claimed that he became caught in the heat of the moment and let

anger dictate his actions. This is why he allowed his troops to set fire to Rome with no

distinction of guilty or innocent.7 In a separate passage Plutarch explains the conspiracy that

underhand dealings had taken place during the battle of Chaeronea. Sulla addresses this in his

Memoirs as well, arguing that all of the favors were perfectly innocent in attempts to clear his

name once more.8 The last example of this comes in the circumstances that surrounded Sulla's

sacrifice of the rough terrain of Attica when moving his troops to Boeotia. This was seen as a

mistake by many for his opponent’s strength in cavalry, but Sulla again clarifies by reaffirming

that his decision was made to seek out the risk of battle and escape starvation.9

It is clear not only that Sulla had multiple reasons behind his choice to construct these

Memoirs, but that a major aspect of it was to account for his lengthy career. The first and

possibly clearest example that Sulla was trying to create a time line of himself is provided in

Sulla after the capture of Athens. The Memoirs provide the date of March 1st for the triumph,

coincidentally the same date Athenian's normally commemorated the great flood.10 Further

6 Marius 35, p. 155. Originally he was said to have hid in the least expected of places.7 Sulla 10, p. 185. Torches along with flaming arrows were used to light Rome ablaze.8 Sulla 23, p. 200. Sulla does not go into depth on the favors.9 Sulla 15, p. 191. Staying in Attica would have lowered supplies and rations even further.10 Sulla 15, p. 191. The flood had once destroyed Athens and was remembered on March 1st.

evidence of this is provided in the texts of outside authors. The first being Pliny's Natural

History where Sulla recounts his presentation of a grass crown by his army, regarded to be a very

high military honor.11 Priscian provides insight as well to the Memoirs in Institutiones

Grammatici giving an explicit statement from the lost text in which Sulla states "The Republic

was headed for the highest danger." showing that he had constructed a time line of events

throughout the books.12

The last point of emphasis that can be drawn from Sulla's Memoirs is his desire to convey

to the general public the immense fortune that aided him throughout his career and battles.

Cicero touches on this in On Divination describing a story where a snake suddenly came to Sulla

from beneath the alter during a sacrifice. A soothsayer begged Sulla to take action as a result of

this and when he did he captured the strongly fortified Samnites camp.13 Sulla's fortune extends

far beyond this isolated incident and he knew this very well stating that he did not mind being

congratulated on these terms and that divine intervention had played a major role in his

achievements. In his Memoirs Sulla wrote that he had greater success when acting in the spur of

the moment than when he carefully deliberated.14 Sulla attributed more to fortune than to his

natural abilities and he was right in doing so. Another remarkable event came after one of Sulla's

victorious battles at Chaeronea; two separate men met him and told of another great victory to

come very soon. Sure enough the prophecies of these men came true and Sulla once again saw

his army thrive in battle.15

Plutarch's use of Sulla's Memoirs in both Marius and Sulla are substantial and it can be

easily conjectured that the books had an effect on Plutarch's bias and decisions when composing

11 Pliny Natural History 22.12. Sulla’s troops chose to give him this high honor for their trust in him.12 Priscian Institutiones Grammatici 9.39. A true timeline is hard to interpret but one did exist.13 Cicero On Divination 1.33.72. The snake was a good omen, everything is to Sulla apparently.14 Sulla 6, p. 180. Sulla found that quick decisions and gut feelings brought him his success.15 Sulla 17, p. 194. They won with ease just as predicted.

these texts. It is clear from the works that he agreed with Sulla's bias against Marius stating

"Marius proved incapable of achieving anything important and demonstrated that military

excellence requires a man to be at the peak of his physical and mental powers".16 Plutarch's

opinion of Sulla however is far more complex and needs to be investigated in depth. What can be

gathered initially is that Plutarch without a doubt recognizes both sides of who Sulla was and

overall respects him as a great leader despite his faults. When Sulla commits the unrighteous act

of blaming the masses for his inability to be selected as Praetorship, Plutarch clarifies stating

"Subsequent events make it look as though Sulla was wrong in attributing his failure to this,

because he succeeded in gaining Praetorship the next year, after winning the people round by

combination of concessions and bribery".17 Plutarch agrees of course that Sulla was blessed with

exceptional good fortune and continually uses the Memoirs for examples. What seems to trouble

the author is the inevitable inconsistency by which Sulla acts. Plutarch states "He bestowed

either honors or insults in an erratic fashion; he acted obsequiously towards those who needed

him, so that it was impossible to tell whether he was temperamentally more disdainful or

deferential" acknowledging the fact Sulla could choose to murder or to save as if by whim. This

is supported several times throughout the text, one example being Sulla's butchery in regards to

the six thousand men in Antemnae who he promised safety to but then chose to murder anyway

because he could.18 In contrast however Sulla shows mercy to the fisherman from Halae and it

resulted in them having the courage to repopulate the city.19

Plutarch focuses instead on the use of Sulla's Memoirs to show things of greater certainty

such as Sulla's strong military rule and his impulsive actions. One example of this is found when

Sulla received a report describing old men in Athens discussing the weakness of one of the walls. 16 Sulla 6, p. 179. Plutarch agrees with Sulla’s poor opinion of Marius for his continued unruly actions.17 Sulla 5, p. 178. He ended up a Praetor but not justly in any sense.18 Sulla 30, p. 208. The men were supposed to be allowed to live but were denied this by Sulla.19 Sulla 27, p. 203. Sulla had previously sacked and killed the people of Halae.

Sulla went there the same night and after finding the report true, attacked immediately and won

the battle with ease.20 Another example can be found in the story of Sulla having his men dig

ditches to divert the course of the Cephisus, not allowing them to rest and horribly punishing

those who did. After the second day they were begging Sulla to let them fight, and he told them

that if they truly wanted to fight they wouldn't ask him to stop working but instead would arm

themselves.21 Sulla often acted ruthlessly but commanded the respect of his armies and it seemed

that Plutarch himself admired the militaristic might he possessed.

One issue that arises however in the texts of Marius and Sulla is content that seemingly

could only be ascribed to the Memoirs but is not credited. The first primary example of this

comes through the analysis of Plutarch's portrayal of soothsayers in which he contradicts

himself. Originally in Marius when speaking of the soothsayer involved with Octavius, Plutarch

writes "Octavius showed more common sense than any of his fellow citizens, and he took special

care to make sure that the dignity of the consulship was not liable to be swayed by external

influences"22 Here we see Plutarch condemn the use of soothsayer's for advisement. Despite this,

when writing outside the credit of the Memoirs, Plutarch tells us the story of Sulla and the

diviner Postumius who offered himself for execution if found false and provides no additional

opinion on the events that occur. This could be because Plutarch treated divine intervention

differently when dealing with Sulla but suggests he may be still deriving from the Memoirs. An

even closer look has to be taken then in order to confirm Plutarch left out credit in some aspects

of the works.

The next example comes from the context in which the last of Sulla's books was written.

Suetonius in De Grammaticis shares that Cornelius Epicadus, a servant of Sulla, completed the

20 Sulla 14, p.190. The Athenian people were slaughtered and it is said the blood caused a flood of its own.21 Sulla 17, p. 192. Sulla showed that he wanted action rather than speech.22 Marius 43, p. 163. By this explanation Plutarch should oppose all divine tellers.

last of the books that Sulla was unable to finish before his death.23 Plutarch tells us that Sulla

stopped writing his books two days before his death but not about Cornelius Epicadus. This leads

with fair reasoning to the conclusion that the private exchanges between Sulla and Valeria appear

to be from the last book but are written by the servant who would have been present to overhear

this dialogue rather than from an untitled source of Plutarch's.24 If Plutarch had used this without

crediting the Memoirs there very well could be additional aspects that don't quite match up and

could be worth a second look.

The last and most damaging example applicable to the use of Plutarch as a source if

proven, is the detailed war accounts to which no credit is given. It is clear from his personal bias

and attempts to alter the way his actions were viewed in the books that Sulla provided

exaggerated accounts of the fatalities conceded in his battles on both sides. The first example

already being referenced in the explanation of his bias "In this battle Sulla claims to have lost

only twenty three men while killing twenty thousand enemies and claiming eight thousand

prisoners" and the second coming from Sulla's battle with Archelaus. Plutarch writes that

according to Sulla only fourteen of his soldiers were missing, two of which reappeared unharmed

later in the night. The opposition being said to have only had ten thousand survive the battle out

of a huge army.25 These figures again appear highly exaggerated, but what does this mean in the

context of Plutarch's integrity? If parts of the Memoir were used without reference that regarded

specific war details they could be concluded as equally exaggerated or altered accounts given by

Sulla for his own benefit. The first evidence is the highly detailed account given by Plutarch, of

Sulla narrowly avoiding death from spears thrown by his enemy. He hadn't seen the spears

coming so his safety is instead credited to a golden statue of Apollo he was claimed to have been

23 Suetonius De Grammaticis 12. It is not known how much was left to finish or how much the servant wrote.24 Sulla 36, p. 213. Valeria inquires about getting some fortune of her own.25 Sulla 21, p. 198. No actual figure was given for the previous size aside from “Huge”.

carrying. This story is not provided a reference and comes from the final battle against the

Samnites when we know that Sulla had exaggerated details from the battle directly before this. A

similar suspicious story can be found in the battle with Achelaus, Sulla turns around a group of

scrambled fugitives to fight off their enemies in heroic nature. He then lets his men rest and the

next day massacres the entire enemy camp of invaders with little resistance. Plutarch concludes

the unreferenced story with "Anyway, that is how the battles of Chaeronea and Orchomenus are

said to have gone."26 What is odd here is that it seems as if he has included a story he overheard

and doubted the truth of himself. An additional question is surfaced that after putting work in

twenty two books why would Sulla not include this story in which he is such a clear heroic

figure? This leads to the conclusion that either it was written by Sulla and Plutarch doubted its

truth so he left it uncredited, or that Sulla never provided information for the intricacies of this

battle and at a loss for other references Plutarch had to somehow fill the gap and used a story that

had lost its true details over generations. Either case looks poor in terms of the use as Plutarch as

a critical source.

The Memoirs which act as a portrayal of the life Sulla as told by him offer an incredibly

unique insight into the ambition, fortune and military power of the once great Roman

commander. To have these books today would be a remarkable primary source of war and

politics in ancient Rome but with its disappearance it can only be investigated through other

authors who referenced it in their own works. We know that is was composed of 22 books total

and was finished by Sulla's servant and published shortly after his death. This not only makes it

difficult to understand the piece from beginning to end, but raises questions of Plutarch himself.

Although he offers a fair deal of insight himself, he could have potentially left pieces of the

26 Sulla 22, p. 199. This phrase seems as if the passage is in question rather than a statement of fact.

Memoirs uncredited. This arises questions to the true certainty of his account of Sulla, for

fourteen of his referenced sources are from the Memoirs while only four are from other sources.