The
following text is a synthesis of several subchapters (bold) that treat the Late
Republican politician and general (imperator)
Lucius Cornelius Sulla (ca. 138-78 BC). My interest is not so much a
biographical one but rather focusses on some aspects of his well-documented
self-stylisation. For the sake of brevity, I don’t include the wider
perspective on his political environment and on other agents who also brought
forward religious claims during
this time (chapters 5.1.3.2+3) as well as – building on this – the
interpretation of transgressive religious behaviour as potentially desirable
for imperatores
especially in a civil war.
Sulla is commonly
known for becoming the first imperator to
turn his army against Rome, for waging a bloody civil war on Italian soil, for
(after his victory) systematically murdering any perceived opposition and as dictator making drastic changes in the
political system. In my thesis, though, his political ambitions and reforms
play a less important role than his career as imperator Felix (~the Fortunate) – his literary self- stylisation
as divinely inspired general. Special emphasis is put on the imperatorial
context. Here, the underlying idea is that Roman religion showed its highest
structural density in the public sphere where political ambitions and religious
office-holding went hand in hand and were tightly connected to the idea of
senatorial authority in religious matters. The situation changed during wartime
which for centuries usually meant the warmer seasons of every year. The turn
from 2nd to 1st century saw the development that military campaigns
didn’t only last for months but could take armies and generals away from Italy
for years. When Rome was at war the imperator
(usually the acting or a recent consul) was invested with almost unlimited
authority not only in military but also religious matters. Far away from the
social control of his peers (except those who accompanied him as subordinates)
it was expected from him not only to interact with his men but also the gods
whose cooperation was both formally necessary and of utmost importance to
motivate the soldiers.
Within
historiography the religious behaviour of generals almost became an own
genre of exemplary accounts which stand
out because here Roman senators (and thereby often religious office-holders)
adapted behavioural patterns which would have been entirely out of place in the
civil sphere (e.g. claiming personal divine inspiration). Furthermore, already
many ancient historians show a peculiar awareness for the importance and
problems of bringing such claims back to Rome. In such cases even when treating
obviously transgressive behaviour moral criteria rarely play a role. The focus lies
rather on interactional considerations: audiences are not only impacted but can
also play an active part so that confirmation, modification and rebuttal by the
‘claimant’ become integral parts of negotiating imperatorial claims.
It is this double
setting of imperatorial religious claims in the military context and their
negotiation at Rome in which Sullas literary account of his military and
religious deeds comes in as an extraordinary source – especially since his
autobiographical work antedates the historiographical material that we have for
this epoch by half a century! By taking a closer look at the transport of
Sullas religious narratives from the battlefields of the east to the form of
literary apology I try to stress not only his ability to circumvent
contemporary scrutiny by his peers but also his systematic contextual overlay
due to the fact that he never ‘civilised’ and even in Rome never refrained from
using imperatorial modes of communication. This assumption is the starting
point for the analysis of the later civil war periods which are no less
characterised by charismatic approaches to imperatorial authority and claims to
religious preordination.
