In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Punitive Memory Sanctions  The Republic of Sulla· · · Eidem consules, si appellandi sunt consules, quos nemo est quin non modo ex memoria, sed etiam ex fastis evellendos putet . . . Cicero, Pro Sestio 33 Sulla’s New Republic Sulla was a deeply ambiguous figure during his lifetime, and he is no less so today. Of particular import is the question of how large a caesura his career and reforms made in Roman political life. It has become a truism that Sulla was able to reform and reestablish the Republic but could not make either his friends or his enemies forget the example of his own extraordinary ambitions and powers. For the purposes of the present study, it would be hard to overestimate the effect of Sulla on the way political memory was treated and conceived of in Rome. His actions show the full potential impact of memory sanctions on a traditional political culture. Sulla marched on Rome in 88 b.c. in order to stake his claim to the command against Mithridates in the East. Sulla was the first Roman to march on his home city, and he took it by force. Virtually his first act as master of Rome was to declare twelve of his leading opponents, including P. Sulpicius the tribune and C. Marius his former commanding officer, to be “enemies” (hostes). This declaration carried with it the loss of all citizen rights: the affected person could be killed with impunity, all property was forfeit, and memory sanctions were the logical conclusion. Only Sulpicius was caught and killed, but the others, including the great general Marius, had to flee for their lives. Punitive Memory Sanctions II  Sulla’s declaration of a living political rival as a hostis in 88 b.c. came as the result of developments in political conflict and punitive memory sanctions that had been imposed after the death of Tiberius Gracchus in 133. Some forty-five years of divisive debates and bitter tactics of revenge taken on fellow citizens produced a vision of total annihilation that would be visited on political rivals in partisan disputes, with virtually no regard for traditional republican politics, for the position of magistrates, or for the rights of citizens. The time for debate and compromise was now past; it was a fight to the death to shape the memories of future Romans, a fight that extended even beyond the grave. Sulla’s extreme measures can be read in various contexts, perhaps most notably in light of the unparalleled prominence of Marius, already six times consul, who now seemed poised to attempt a political comeback. The rise of Marius had been closely associated with increasingly shrill attacks on the nobiles, both as individuals and as a class. These attacks combined internal political bitterness, and what Sallust characterized as class warfare, with mounting pressure from abroad, especially in the serious wars against Jugurtha in Numidia and against the Gallic and German tribes in southern Gaul and northern Italy. Mithridates VI of Pontus, the Romans’ new enemy in the East, also saw the growing instability of Rome as an opportunity for his own imperial projects. There can be no doubt that the tribune P. Sulpicius acted unconstitutionally when he deprived Sulla of his command in the East. It was Sulla, however , who first attacked the city with a Roman army and who was the first to deny a Roman his status of citizen by specifically designating him as the equivalent of a foreign enemy. The consequences of Sulla’s actions were soon revealed. As soon as he left with his army to fight Mithridates, Sulla was himself declared a hostis, with the result that he stood to lose not only his command but also his own position as a citizen. His property was confiscated, and his house on the Palatine was demolished. His wife Metella and their children fled as refugees to Greece in search of him. Although no ancient source directly describes it, statues and monuments that recalled Sulla were certainly also destroyed at the same time. All memory of him was eradicated in the city. The situation in Roman politics can be described as one of complete stasis or division between Sulla and his rivals, soon led by L. Cornelius Cinna, who repeatedly held the consulship in Sulla’s absence. This division seems the more striking because it was enforced by two opposing members of the extended patrician family of the Cornelii. The conflict was even more destructive than the clash between Tiberius Gracchus...

Share