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

“a deeP-seated lUst for emPire and riches”: sallUst’s Epistula Mithridatis a genUine letter from a Pontic king? The EM purports to be a letter from Mithridates VI Eupator, the king of Pontus, addressed to Phraates III Theos, the twelfth Parthian king of the Arsacid line.1 It requests Parthian aid against Lucullus and his troops, most likely shortly after the Battle of Tigranocerta in 69 B.c.2 The EM presents a series of arguments in favor of the Parthians joining an alliance with Mithridates and Tigranes, the king of Armenia. Some of these arguments are based on selected examples from the history of Roman foreign policy in the East—more specifically, from Roman treatment of Eastern kings. In reality, any diplomatic correspondence between Mithridates, Tigranes, and Phraates proved ineffective, since Phraates ultimately decided to remain neutral in the conflict, even though he had apparently made some sort of deal with both sides.3 The EM comes to us among a collection of Sallustian speeches and letters (Vatican Lat. 3864) probably originally produced in the first or second centuries a.d.4 This means that the context of the EM is wholly lost to us. Before we can conclude that the Letter of Mithridates offers us an opportunity to glean sentiments concerning Roman imperialism that are Sallust’s invention, we must determine that this composition is largely of his own making. A few scholars have asserted that the EM owes its origin to a document culled from the archives of Mithridates, which Sallust somehow acquired and translated or adapted into Latin.5 Some claim that Pompey discovered this epistle in a secret archive after the Third Mithridatic War, and then presumably brought it to Rome.6 Others have supposed that the EM is an expression of authentic Pontic propaganda, and thus based on arguments that are not Sallust’s own.7 There are a number of reasons to doubt these assertions, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the letter is a free invention—a composition of Sallust with, at best, minimal concern for any historical missive or genuine pro-Pontic propaganda.8 First, Fronto mentions the EM as one of the letters in Greco-Roman historiography that is not entirely the work of an actual hisChapter 1 18 mithridates and the east torical subject.9 In addition, all our supposed sources for pro-Pontic propaganda amount to very little. We possess one inscription of a Mithridatic letter (Welles no. 74)10 and a few purported mentions in our Greek and Roman literary sources of a pro-Mithridatic tradition.11 None of these examples, however , has much in common with the text of the EM; in fact, the inscription’s discussion of the Romans is far more reminiscent of Sallust’s oratio obliqua speech of Jugurtha to King Bocchus ( Jug. 81.1).12 In short, Sallust would not have needed to examine any Mithridatic propaganda or explicitly pro-Pontic sources in order to compose his diatribe against Rome—even though it is possible that he consulted pro-Pontic works during his research for the Historiae .13 We can be reasonably certain, then, that the EM is the creation of Sallust and is the product of a Roman historian’s attempt to reconstruct the likely arguments of an anti-Roman Eastern king. the text The Exordium (EM 1–4) On to the letter itself. The EM opens with a greeting and a highly rhetorical exordium that offers the principles by which the appeal to Phraates ought to be judged: (1) Rex Mithridates regi Arsaci salutem. Omnes, qui secundis rebus suis ad belli societatem orantur, considerare debent, liceatne tum pacem agere, dein, quod quaesitur, satisne pium tutum gloriosum an indecorum sit. (2) Tibi si perpetua pace frui licet, nisi hostes opportuni et scelestissumi, egregia fama, si Romanos oppresseris, futura est, neque petere audeam societatem et frustra mala mea cum bonis tuis misceri sperem. (EM 1–2)14 (1) King Mithridates to King Arsaces, Greetings. Everyone who is entreated to enter a war alliance when his circumstances are good must consider whether it is right to keep the peace, and then whether what is sought from him is sufficiently reverent, safe, honorable, or disgraceful. (2) If it is right for you to enjoy enduring peace, if there were not a susceptible and vicious enemy, and there would not be extraordinary fame if you should overcome the Romans, I would not dare to seek your alliance and hope in vain to...

Share