BMCR 2009.03.25, Franc,ois Hinard, Svllana varia: Aux sources

Franc,ois Hinard, Svllana varia: Aux sources de la premie\re guerre
civile romaine. De l'arche/ologie a\ l'histoire.  Paris:  De Boccard,
2008.  Pp. 168.  ISBN 9782701802428.  EUR 29.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Federico Santangelo, University of Wales, Lampeter
([email protected])
Word count:  1954 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2009/2009-03-25.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/03/20090325.html
-------------------------------

Professor Franc,ois Hinard passed away last September, and his death
was a great loss to Roman studies. The volume under review here is a
powerful testimony to the sharp judgement and outstanding learning of
this scholar. Professor Hinard made a remarkable contribution to the
study of the late Republic throughout his distinguished career: he is
the author of the reference study on the proscriptions, the co-editor
of the Books 41-42 of Cassius Dio's Roman History and Cicero's Pro
Roscio Amerino in the Bude/ collection, and he published a number of
contributions on the age of Sulla and Marius, including what is
arguably the best biography of the dictator.[[1]] In light of the scale
of Hinard's scholarly production, the title of the volume under review
might well mislead some readers. A clarification is in order, then:
this is not a collection of Kleine Schriften. It is, on the contrary, a
series of new essays, loosely but surely connected with each other,
which only occasionally build upon the conclusions or approaches of
already published contributions. The second part of the title might
create false impressions in another respect. The scope of the volume,
in fact, goes beyond the Civil War: a significant portion of the text
is devoted to the study of Sulla's initiatives after his victory. The
structure of the book somehow does justice to the title of the series
in which it appeared--'from archaeology to history': there is a very
brief amount of archaeological, iconographical and inscriptional
evidence, and plenty of thorough, consistently careful and on occasion
conclusive scrutiny of the literary tradition. The declared aim of this
book is to stimulate further debate (p. 26), and to make several
methodological points, as well as a number of points of historical
analysis. Hinard's familiarity with the evidence is hard to match; his
discussion is vigorous and does not refrain from controversy; his
dissatisfaction with, and at times displeasure at most of the Sullan
scholarship produced over the last couple of decades is often apparent.

In the opening chapter of Svllana varia Hinard argues that the literary
sources are the main category of evidence that we can turn to if we are
to embark on the study of the 'First Civil War'. There is a brief
discussion of the potential of iconographic evidence and epigraphy (p.
8-10), which seem to be regarded as barely more than interesting
complements to the literary tradition. There is a useful summary of the
iconography of the Bocchus monument, or at least of what we know about
it; the problem is likely to be put on a new footing when the Sullan
trophy discovered at Orchomenus in 2004 is published.[[2]] It may also
be added that our knowledge of the Bocchus monument would be
significantly improved by a geoarchaeological analysis, which could
determine whether the monument is indeed made of Numidian stone, as it
has been repeatedly argued. Hinard is unapologetically interested in
the political and military dimensions; he does not ask questions about
the impact of Sulla on Italy and the empire. In this context, stressing
the centrality of the literary evidence becomes a necessity, and Hinard
has plenty of valuable points to offer.

Recognising the importance of the literary tradition does not entail an
unreserved appreciation of its value; in fact, Hinard's take on the
reliability of Plutarch and Appian is extremely critical. Some of the
most negative modern views on Plutarch's anti-historicity are called
into play (p. 17), and Appian does not get better press; his
representation of the civil wars is dismissed as barely more than a
caricature (p. 21). It would have been interesting to see a closer
engagement with some of the recent work on these two authors in
English, which takes a much more positive view on the contribution that
these two authors can make to historical understanding.[[3]]

Chapter I is a discussion of the events of the year 88: it is
appropriately suggested that the march on Rome need not have been
decided by Sulla alone (p. 29), and that a coalition took shape within
the Roman elite trying to secure the respect of the legitimate
prerogatives of the consuls breached by Sulpicius's laws (for a similar
approach, see B. Levick, 'Sulla's March on Rome in 88 B.C., Historia 31
[1982] 503-508, quoted only once towards the end of the essay). There
is much of value in this discussion. It is somewhat surprising to see
the re-emergence of the dichotomy between 'Greek sources' and 'Latin
sources' in the study of the tradition -- a choice that may remind one
of early twentieth century Quellenforschung, and shares both its
advantages and its limits.

Chapter II deals with the problem of Sulla's dictatorship. Despite the
scepticism he deserves (in Hinard's view), Appian is inevitably the
starting point here. Hinard argues that the appointment of an interrex
was a 'natural' development after the end of two consuls and at the end
of the Civil War (p. 44), and that the instauration of a dictatorship
must have seemed a logical and welcome development to most of Sulla's
contemporaries, after years of civil war. Perhaps so: we know so
little, after all, about the contemporary perception of those events.
Hinard's cautious, at times minimalistic, approach is confirmed by the
following section. The problem of the official titulature of Sulla's
dictatorship is dismissed as a false one, created by an overconfident
reading of Appian; and Hinard restates what he argued elsewhere about
the length of the magistracy, i.e. that Sulla held the dictatorship for
only six months, and resigned in June 81. I doubt that a firm solution
may be reached on this issue, other than Badian's conclusion that
Sulla's abdication must have occurred by the end of 81. At any rate, it
seems unlikely that the reference to Sulla quem honoris causa nomino in
Rosc. Amer. 2.6 may be meaningfully contrasted with the reference to
Sulla dictator in Quinct. 24.76.

Chapter III is an important discussion of Sulla's extension of the
pomerium. Hinard rightly argues that this act must be seen in relation
to the extension of Roman citizenship up to the Po Valley, rather than
with the victory in the Greek East. It is also likely, as Hinard says,
that the reorganisation of the Senate must be part of the background,
although the extent to which Sulla included the Italian elites is far
from clear from the available evidence. I would also be careful in
pointing to a 'censorial context' for the events of 82-81, given the
uncertainties about what Sulla actually meant to do with the
censorship. However, Hinard's emphasis on a certain rhetoric of the
'refoundation' of Rome in this period is very appropriate.

Chapter IV is perhaps the least innovative section of the volume, as it
takes up the theme of the 'male mort' that Hinard discussed on other
occasions, with special attention to the death of the proscribed. There
is also a section on several famous suicides in this period, from Q.
Lutatius Catulus to L. Cornelius Merula, which the students of the late
Republic will find relevant and informative (p. 83-92). Hinard notes
that 'the anthropological study of death in Rome remains to be done'
(p. 94); this chapter will be a good collection of preparatory
material.

The edition of the pro Roscio Amerino by Hinard and Y. Benferhat is
already required reading for the students of the late Republic, and
chapter V in this volume should be read as a Nachtrag to that work.
There is a nuanced appraisal of Cicero's attempt to place himself in a
position that may attract the favour of the 'moderate' sectors of the
nobility and of the equestrian order; the simplified view that Cicero
exploited the case to stage an attack against Sulla is duly refuted;
and a useful attempt is made to portray Chrysogonus as more isolated a
figure than has often been argued (p. 105-106; see also Cic. Rosc.
Amer. 49.141). Moreover, it is shown how establishing the position and
responsibilities of Sex. Roscius is a far from straightforward
operation. It is regrettable that Hinard could not take into account
the recent study of R. Seager, 'The Guilt or Innocence of Sex.
Roscius', Athenaeum 95 (2007) 895-910.

With chapter VI and VII we are back in Hinard's own prouincia: the
proscriptions. There is a discussion of the status of the children of
the proscribed, and of the lex Plautia which made their return
possible. The conclusion of Hinard's careful analysis of the literary
evidence is that upon their return they were restored the right to
vote, but not that to prosecute -- a ius imminutum that would last for
three decades. Chapter VII is a discussion of the cases of two
individuals that were affected by the proscriptions: a proscribed, C.
Norbanus, whom Cicero repeatedly mentions in his works, and who
probably was not a homo nouus, despite what has often been argued; and
the son of a proscribed, C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus, who was consul
in 43 BC, and who must not be confused with the C. Vibius Pansa who was
tribune in 51 (contra F. X. Ryan, 'C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus and his
Fathers', Mnemosyne 49 [1996] 186-188; cf. also Hinard's note 'Vibius
Pansa ou Caetronius?', Mnemosyne 52 [1999] 202-206).

The Conclusion consists of a wide-ranging discussion of how Sulla
should be understood and interpreted. Hinard's central contention, in
this book and elsewhere, is that Sulla is not an enigma, and that his
aims and goals may be reconstructed with some confidence. At the same
time, the category of 'myth' called into play by Laffi is seen as
reductive too. Hinard suggests that Sulla should be understood as an
exemplum, as a political and moral paradigm that prompted different
responses and reactions. This is probably true; I suppose that Hinard's
exemplum of Sulla is not quite the same thing as the 'example of Sulla'
that R. Syme mentioned in The Roman Revolution, Oxford 1939, p. 17,
strikingly not called into play here. There is room for a useful
critique of the concept of Sulla's crudelitas, and for a sensible
discussion of the anachronisms that may have depicted Sulla's policies
with attributes of the later stages of late Republican history. Hinard
is certainly right to stress that the figure of Sulla may have prompted
different reactions in different quarters of the public opinion, even
decades after his death; it is important to avoid reading Sulla within
the tunnel-vision dictated by what we know about Caesar's use of the
dictatorship. The risk is always present, especially if one focuses on
the internal politics, and does not consider Sulla's role in the making
of the Empire, in Italy and overseas. Despite its focus on those
developments, Hinard's book avoids this pitfall.

The volume is on the whole well produced; I have noticed about a dozen
misprints between main text and footnotes, none of which affects the
understanding of the argument. There is a very rich consolidated
bibliography at the end of the book, fully up-to-date until the first
half of 2007, and followed by a careful index nominum, which will prove
invaluable. Hinard's last book is a difficult and demanding one, no
doubt intended for the advanced reader, if not for the specialist. It
contains important points of method, and it offers a wealth of
information and an impressive range of interpretative insights. Even
when readers will not agree with all Hinard's points, they are bound to
find him an intelligent guide to the complexity and diversity of this
period, and their debt of gratitude to him will have to extend to his
whole work, which started to shed light on late Republican problems a
long time before the appearance of Svllana varia.


------------------
Notes:


1.   F. Hinard, Les proscriptions de la Rome re/publicaine (Collection
de l'Ecole Franc,aise de Rome 83), Rome 1985; (with P. Cordier et M.-L.
Freyburger), Dion Cassius, Histoire Romaine, livres 41, 42 e/dition,
traduction et commentaire (Collection des Universite/s de France),
Paris 2002; (with Y. Benferhat), Cice/ron. Discours (Tome 1.2): Pour
Sextus Roscius (Collection des Universite/s de France), Paris 2006;
Sylla, Paris 1985. See the Wikipedia
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Hinard)  bibliography.

2.   For a brief account of the discovery of this monument, see Farmer
turns up Roman trophy
(http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100012_08/12/2004_50471)
. The remains of the Chaeronea trophy were discovered nearly two
decades ago: J. Camp et al., 'A Trophy from the Battle of Chaironeia of
86 B. C.', AJA 96 (1992) 443-465.

3.   See e.g. T. Duff, Plutarch's Lives. Exploring Virtue and Vice,
Oxford 1999 and A. M. Gowing, The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and
Cassius Dio, Ann Arbor 1992, both absent from bibliography.