ページの画像
PDF

Praetorio, Suetonius Tranquillus, and many others, on the ground of associating with Sabina the emperor's wife, without his permission, and apparently during the emperor's absence in Britain, on terms of more familiarity than was consistent with respect to the imperial household. (Spartian. Hadrian. c. 11). Suetonius wrote many works, a list of which is given in Suidas (s. v. Todykvaxos), De Ludis Graecorum, lib. i. ; De Spectaculis et Certaminibus Romanorum, libri ii.; De Anno Romano, lib. i.; De Notis, on the notae or marks used in writing, which may have been a treatise on the Roman short hand; De Ciceronis Republica; De Nominibus propriis et de Generibus Westium ; De Vocibus mali ominis; De Roma ejusque Institutis et Moribus, libri ii.; Historiae Caesarum, libri Octo: Stemma illustrium Romanorum. He also wrote some other works of which fragments have been discovered: De Regibus, libri iii.; De Institutione Officiorum ; De Rebus Variis ; and others. There are still extant, and attributed to Suetonius, Vitae Duodecim Caesarum, or the twelve Imperators, of whom the first is C. Julius Caesar and the last is Domitian ; Liber de illustribus Grammaticis ; and Liber de claris Rhetoribus ; neither of which is contained in the list of Suidas; Vita Terentii, Horatii, Persii, Lucani, Juvenalis, Plimii Majoris, which also are not included. in the catalogue of Suidas. The chief work of Suetonius is his lives of the Caesars which, as it appears, were sometimes distributed in eight books, as they are in some manuscripts. The authorities which he followed for the several lives have been diligently examined by Augustus Krause (De Suetonii Tranquilli Fontibus et Auctoritate, Berlin, 1841). Krause gives some reasons for supposing that Suetonius consulted the historical writings of Tacitus, and he argues, that as Tacitus did not write his annals before A. D. l 17, in which year Hadrian succeeded Trajan, Suetonius did not write the lives of the Caesars before A. D. 120. This is not very satisfactory, though it must be admitted that there are many expressions in Suetonius, which closely resemble the expressions in Tacitus; and Suetonius, a grammarian (grammaticus), was likely enough to copy particular phrases. Indeed Suetonius often quotes Senatusconsulta and other documentary evidence in the very words, which Tacitus as a general rule did not. These lives of Suetonius are not and do not affect to be historical: they are rather anecdotical, and in the nature of Mémoires pour servir. His authorities are the writings of the Roman emperors themselves and those of their freedmen, Epistolae, Orationes, Testaments, and other documents of that kind; public documents, as Senatusconsulta, Fasti, inscriptions, and the Acta of the Senate and the people; also the Greek and Roman writers on Roman history. He also learned much from conversation with those who were older than himself, and he would know something of Titus and Domitian at least, as he was a young man during their reign. Suetonius does not follow the chronological order in his Lives, but he groups together many things of the same kind, as he says himself (Augustus, c. 9). His language is very brief and precise, sometimes obscure, without any affectation of ornament. He certainly tells a prodigious number of scandalous anecdotes about the Caesars, but there was plenty to tell about them ; and if he did not choose to

suppress those anecdotes which he believed to be true, that is no imputation on his veracity. As a great collection of facts of all kinds, the work on the Caesars is invaluable for the historian of this period. His judgment and his honesty have both been attacked by some modern critics; but we are of the same opinion as Krause that on both grounds a careful study of his work will justify him. The friendship of the younger Plinius is evidence in favour of the integrity of Suetonius, and Vopiscus, no great authority, it is true, calls him a most accurate and impartial writer (Flav. Wopisc. Firmus, c. 1; compare the Life of Probus, c. 2). Those who attack the credit of Suetonius must conduct the assault with more ability and judgment than H. Heisen in his absurd essay, entitled “Dissertatio de Imperatoria majestate a primis Historiae Augustae conditoribus indignissime habita.” (Symbol. Litt. Bremen. tom. ii. iii.) The treatise De Illustribus Grammaticis and that De Claris Rhetoribus are probably only parts of a larger work, for Hieronymus says in a letter to Desiderius, “I have written a treatise on illustrious men from the time of the Apostles to our own age, imitating therein Tranquilius and the Greek Apollonius.” (Casaubon's note on the title of the work De Illustribus Grammaticis.) These two treatises contain a few biographical and other notices, that are occasionally useful. It has been conjectured that the few scanty lives of the Latin poets, already enumerated, belonged to a larger work De Poetis. If this conjecture be true, the short notice of the elder Plinius may not be by Suetonius, and Casaubon will not allow it to be his. But the opinion as to the book De Poetis is merely a conjecture. A work entitled De Viris Illustribus, which has been attributed both to Suetonius and the younger Plinius, is now unanimously assigned to Aurelius Victor. The editions of Suetonius are very numerous. Before A. D. 1500, fifteen editions had appeared, a proof that the Lives of the Caesars were favourite reading. The oldest edition with a date is that of Rome, 1470, folio. The best of the early editions is that of I. Casaubon, Geneva, 1595, and Paris, 1610. A small edition by J. Schild, Leiden, 1647, contains a selection of useful notes. One of the most useful editions is that by P. Burmann, Amsterdam, 1736, 2 vols. 4to., with a selection of notes from the principal commentators, the fragments of Suetonius, inscriptions relating to the Caesars, tables of the coins of the Caesars, and a copious index. One of the latest editions is that of Baumgarten-Crusius, Leipzig, 1816, 3 vols. 8vo., which was again edited by C. B. Hase, Paris, 1828, 2 vols. 8vo. There is an English translation of the Twelve Caesars by the industrious translator, Philemon Holland, London, 1606, folio. Besides these there are four other English translations, the last of which is by A. Thomson, London, 1796, 8vo., “with annotations and a review of the government and literature of the different periods.” There are translations in Italian, French, Spanish, Dutch, German, and Danish. Bähr's Geschichte der Römischen Literatur contains the chief references for the literature of Suetonius. [G. L.] SUFE'NAS, M. NO/NIUS, was tribune of the plebs in B. c. 56, and in conjunction with his colleagues C. Cato and Procilius, prevented the consular comitia from being held, in consequence of which an interregnum ensued and thus Pompey and Crassus were elected consuls. On account of their violent conduct in their tribunate Sufenas and his colleagues were brought to trial in B. c. 54; Procilius was condemned, but Sufenas and Cato were acquitted through the influence of Pompey. Sufenas was propraetor in B. c. 51, in one of the provinces in the neighbourhood of Cilicia, and on the breaking out of the civil war two years afterwards, he is mentioned as one of Pompey's generals. (Cic. ad Att. iv. 15. § 4, vi. 1. § 13, viii. 15. § 3.) He appears to be the same as the Nonius, who was present at the battle of Pharsalia, and who sought to encourage his party after their defeat by remarking that seven eagles were left in the camp of Pompey; when Cicero replied, “It would be very well if we were fighting with jack-daws.” (Plut. Cic. 38.) There are coins of one Sex. Nonius Sufenas, a specimen of which is subjoined. On the obverse is the head of Saturn and on the reverse a woman seated whom Victory is in the act of crowning. On the reverse we read sex. NoNI. PR. L. V. P. F.; the latter letters are interpreted either praetor or primus ludos votivos publicos fecit. (Eckhel, vol. v. pp. 261, 262.)

Coin or sex. Nonius supenAs.

SUIDAS (Xoutòas). A Greek Lexicon is extant under the name of Suidas, but nothing is known of the compiler. A Suidas is mentioned by Strabo (p. 329, ed. Casaub.) as the author of a history of Thessaly, and this work is also cited by the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius, and by Stephanus of Byzantium (s. v.v. "Auvpos, Aw8ávn, Frag. Steph.). It is not likely that this Suidas is the author of the Lexicon; but no certain conclusion as to the age of the compiler can be derived from passages in the work, which undoubtedly were written long after the time of Stephanus of Byzantium, for the work may have received numerous interpolations and additions. Eustathius, who lived about the end of the twelfth century A. D., quotes the Lexicon of Suidas. The article Adam (`Abdu) contains a chronological epitome, which ends with the emperor Joannes Zimisces, who died A. D. 974 ; and in the article Constantinople (Kwatavruvotomoxis) are mentioned Basisilius the second, and Constantius, who succeeded Joannes Zimisces. A remark under the article Polyeuctus (IIoatevktos) shows that the writer of that remark was contemporaneous with the Patriarch Polyeuctus (#yéveto kal kaff juās roxsevktos, &c.) who succeeded Theophylactus, A. D. 956 (note of Reinesius); but the date 936 is given by other authorities. This passage which Reinesius assumes to prove the period of the author of the Lexicon, merely proves the period of the writer who made the remark; and he may be either the author of the Lexicon or an interpolator. But there

are passages in the Lexicon which refer even to a

later date (s. vo. Thapos; Aéptpov; ‘Hyłropes), for Michael Psellus is quoted, and Psellus lived at the close of the eleventh century A. D. (See the notes on these words in Gaisford's edition.) The Lexicon of Suidas is a dictionary of words arranged in alphabetical order, with some few peculiarities of arrangement; but it contains both words which are found in dictionaries of languages, and also names of persons and places, with extracts from ancient Greek writers, grammarians, scholiasts, and lexicographers, and some extracts from later Greek writers. The names of persons comprehend both persons who are mentioned in sacred and in profane history, which shows that if the work is by one hand, it is by a Christian ; but there is no inconsistency in supposing that the original of the Lexicon which now goes under the name of Suidas, is a work of earlier date even than the time of Stephanus of Byzantium, and that it received large accessions from some various hands. No well conceived plan has been the basis of this work: it is incomplete as to the number of articles, and exceedingly irregular and unequal in the execution. Some articles are pretty complete, others contain no information at all. As to the biographical notices it has been conjectured that Suidas or the compiler got them all from one source, which, it is further supposed, may be the Onomatologos or Pinax of Hesychius of Miletus; for it is said in Suidas (s. v. 'Hotzios), “ of which this book is an epitome;” but it is an incorrect interpretation to conclude that Suidas means to say that his work is an epitome of the Onomatologos (or riva: táv év waibeig óvouadrów), which would be manifestly false: he means to say that the work in use at the time when he wrote was an epitome of the Onomatologos. The scholiast on Aristophanes has been freely used in the compilation of this Lexicon. The extracts from ancient Greek writers are very numerous, but the names of the writers are frequently omitted. These extracts have sometimes no reference to the title of the article, and have no application to it; a circumstance probably owing to numerous interpolations made in the manuscript copies of the Lexicon. A want of criticism perwades the whole work, or rather excessive carelessness, as in the case of the name Severus (>essipos, and Küster's note). The article Alyattes (AAvdrrms) is another instance, and there are others of a like kind. There is prefixed to the editions of Suidas the following notice: —To utv trapöv 81éxsov ×ovtåa, oi & ouvračauévol touro àvöpes aépol, which is followed by a list of twelve names. As to this title, see the remarks of Harles. The Lexicon of Suidas, though without merit as to its execution, is valuable both for the literary history of antiquity, for the explanation of words, and for the citations from many ancient writers; and a prodigious amount of critical labour has been bestowed upon it. Many emendations have been made on the text by Toup and others. The first edition of Suidas was by Demetrius Chalcondylas, Milan, 1499, fol., without a Latin version. The second, by the elder Aldus, Venice, 1514, fol., is also without a Latin version: this edition was reprinted by Froben, Bâle, 1544, fol. with some corrections. The first Latin translation of Suidas was made by Hieron. Wolf, Bâle, 1564, 1581, fol. The first edition, which contained both the Greek text and a Latin version, was by Aemilius Portus, Geneva, 1619, 2 vols. fol., and 1630, with a new title. The Latin version is said to be better than Wolf's. The edition of L. Küster appeared at Cambridge, 1705, 3 vols. folio. The basis of this edition is not the Editio Princeps, but that of Portus. Küster corrected the text with the aid of the MSS., added numerous good notes, and improved the version of Portus. But he dealt with the Greek text rather in an arbitrary way, and rejected all that he con sidered to be interpolated. J. Gronovius made an attack on Küster's edition, to which Küster replied. The preface of Küster contails a dissertation on Suidas. The edition of Suidas by T. Gaisford, in three handsome volumes folio, appeared at Oxford in 1834. The first two volumes contain the text without a Latin version, and the notes, which are chiefly selected from Küster and others. The third volume contains “Index Kusterianus Rerum et Nominum Propriorum quae extra seriem suam in Suidae Lexico occurrunt;” “Index Glossarum Personarum Verborumque notatu digniorum ;” and “Index Scriptorum a Suida citatorum.” In his preface Gaisford states, that he used nearly the same MSS. as Küster, but that Küster was care. less in noting the readings of the MSS. Gaisford has given the various readings of the best MS., and those of the edition of Chalcondylas. Küster adopted many of the emendations of Portus without acknowledgment, and he is accused generally of borrowing without owning where he got his matter from. The edition of G. Bernhardy, 4to. Halle, 1834, contains a Latin version. It is founded on the edition of Gaisford, as appears from the title — “Gr. & Lat. ad fidem optimorum librorum exactum, post Th. Gaisford recens. et adnot. critic. instruxit Gds. Bernhardy.” There are said to be two unpublished extracts from an epitome of Suidas, by Thomas of Crete, and by Macarius Hieromonachus, the brother of Nicephorus Gregoras. As to the Latin translation of Suidas, said to have been made by Robert Grostete, bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1253, see Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vi. R. 402. [G. L.] SUI'LLIUS CAESONI'NUS. [CAEsonINUs.] SUI'LLIUS NERULI'NUS. [NERULINUs.] SUI'LLIUS RUFUS. [Rufus.] SULCA, Q. BAE'BIUS, one of the Roman ambassadors, sent to Ptolemy in Egypt, in B. c. 173. (Liv. xlii. 6.) SULLA, the name of a patrician family of the Cornelia gens. This family was originally called Rufinus [RUFINUs], and the first member of it who obtained the name of Sulla was P. Cornelius Sulla, who was flamen dialis and praetor in the second Punic war. [See below, No. 1.] This was stated by the dictator Sulla, in the second book of his Commentaries (Gell. i. 12), and is corroborated by Livy and other authorities. Plutarch, therefore has made a mistake in saying that the dictator Sulla had this name given to him from a personal peculiarity. (Plut. Sull. 2.) The origin of the name is uncertain. Drumann, and most modern writers, suppose that it is a word of the same signification as Rufus or Rufinus, and refers simply to the red colour of the hair or the complexion; and Plutarch appears to have understood the word to have this meaning, since he relates ('. c.) that

[graphic]

the dictator received the name of Sulla in consequence of his face being spotted with rough red blotches interspersed with the white. Macrobius (Sat. i. 17) gives quite a different explanation, and derives the word from Sibylla, which he says was given to P. Cornelius Rufinus, because he was the first to introduce the celebration of the Ludi Apollinares in accordance with the commands of the Sibylline books, and that this surname Sibylla was afterwards shortened into Sylla. This explanation of the word is repeated by Charisius (Inst. Gram. i. 20); but, independent of other objections, it must be rejected on the authority of Quintilian (i. 4. § 25), who classes Sulla with other cognomens, which owed their origin to certain bodily peculiarities. Some modern writers, such as Cortius (ad Sall. Catil. 5), regard Sulla as a diminutive of Sura, which was a cognomen in several Roman gentes [Sir Al, and we are disposed to accept this as the most probable explanation of the word. It would be formed from Sura on the same analogy as puella from puera, and tenellus from tener (comp. Schneider, Elementarlehre der lateinischen Sprache, vol. i. p. 47, &c.). There is no authority for writing the word Sylla, as is done by many modern writers. On coins and inscriptions we always find Sula or Sulla, never Sylla. 1. P. Cokselius (Rufinus) Sulla, the greatgrandfather of the dictator Sulla, and the grandson of P. Cornelius Rufinus, who was twice consul in the Samnite wars. [Rufinus, CoRNElius, No. 2.] His father is not mentioned. He was, as has been already mentioned, the first of the family who bore the surname of Sulla. He was flamen dialis, and likewise praetor urbanus and peregrinus in B. c. 212. The praetor of the preceding year, M. Attilius, had handed over to him certain sacred verses of the seer Marcius, partly referring to the past and partly to the future, and which commanded the Romans, among other things, to institute an annual festival in honour of Apollo. Upon this the senate ordered the decemviri to consult the Sibylline books, and as these gave the same command, Sulla presided over the first Ludi Apollinares, which were celebrated this year in the circus maximus. (Liv. xxv. 2, 3, 12, 15, 32, 41.) 2. P. Cornelius SULLA, the son of No. 1, and the grandfather of the dictator Sulla, was praetor in B. c. 186, when he obtained Sicily as his province. (Liv. xxxix. 6, 8.) 3. SER. Cokx Elius SULLA, the brother of No. 2, was one of the ten commissioners, who was sent by the senate into Macedonia, in B. c. 167, after the conquest of Perseus, in order to arrange the affairs of that country, in conjunction with L. Aemilius Paulus. (Liv. xlv. 17.) 4. L. Cor NELIUS SULLA, the son of No. 2, and the father of the dictator Sulla, lived in obscurity, and left his son only a slender fortune. (Plut. Sull. 1). 5. L. Cornelius Sull A Felix, the dictator, was born in B. c. 138. Like most other great men, he was the architect of his own fortunes. He possessed neither of the two great advantages which secured for the Roman nobles easy access to the honours of the commonwealth, an illustrious ancestry and hereditary wealth. His father had left him so small a property that he paid for his lodgings very little more than a freedman who lived in the same house with him. But still his means were sufficient to secure for him a good

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

education. He studied the Greek and Roman literature with diligence and success, and appears early to have imbibed that love for literature and art by which he was distinguished throughout his life. At the same time that he was cultivating his mind, he was also indulging his senses. He passed a great part of his time in the company of actors and actresses; he was fond of wine and women; and he continued to pursue his pleasures with as much eagerness as his ambitious schemes down to the time of his death. He possessed all the accomplishments and all the vices which the old Cato had been most accustomed to denounce, and he was one of those patterns of Greek literature and of Greek profligacy who had begun to make their appearance at Rome in Cato's time, and had since become more and more common among the Roman nobles. But Sulla's love of pleasure did not absorb all his time, nor did it emasculate his mind; for no Roman during the latter days of the republic, with the exception of Julius Caesar, had a clearer judgment, a keener discrimination of character, or a firmer will. The truth of this the following history will abundantly prove. The slender property of Sulla was increased by the liberality of his step-mother and of a courtezan named Nicopolis, both of whom left him all their fortune. His means, though still scanty for a

Roman noble, now enabled him to aspire to the honours of the state, and he accordingly became a candidate for the quaestorship, to which he was elected for the year B. c. 107. He was ordered to carry over the cavalry to the consul C. Marius, who had just taken the command of the Jugurthine war in Africa. Marius was not well pleased that a quaestor had been assigned to him, who was only known for his profligacy, and who had had no experience in war; but the zeal and energy with which Sulla attended to his new duties soon rendered him a useful and skilful officer, and gained for him the unqualified approbation of his commander, notwithstanding his previous prejudices against him. He was equally successful in winning the affections of the soldiers. He always addressed them with the greatest kindness, seized every opportunity of conferring favours upon them, was ever ready to take part in all the jests of the camp, and at the same time never shrunk from sharing in all their labours and dangers. Sulla, doubtless, had already the consulship before his eyes, and thus early did he show that he possessed the great secret of a man's success in a free state, the art of winning the affections of his fellow-men. He distinguished himself at the battle of Cirta, in which Jugurtha and Bocchus were defeated; and when the latter entered into negotiations with Marius, for the purpose of delivering the Numidian

king into the hands of the Romans, the consul sent Sulla to Bocchus to bring the matter to a conclusion. It was chiefly owing to the influence which Sulla had acquired over the mind of Bocchus, that the latter, after much hesitation, was eventually persuaded to sacrifice his ally. Sulla carried Jugurtha in chains to the camp of Marius. [Juguratha.] The quaestor shared with the consul the glory of bringing this war to a conclusion; and Sulla himself was so proud of his share in the success, that he had a seal ring engraved, representing the surrender of Jugurtha, which he continued to wear till the day of his death. Italy was now threatened with an invasion by the vast hordes of the Cimbri and Teutones, who had already destroyed several Roman armies. Marius was accordingly again raised to the consulship, which he held for four years in succession, B. c. 104–101. In the first of these years Sulla served under Marius as legate, and in the second as tribunus militum, and in each year gained great distinction by his military services. But towards the end of B. c. 103, or the beginning of B. c. 102, the good understanding which had hitherto prevalled between Marius and Sulla was interrupted, the former being jealous, says Plutarch, of the rising same of his officer. Sulla accordingly left Marius in B. c. 102, in order to serve under his colleague Q. Catulus, with whom he had still greater opportunities of gaining distinction, as Catulus was not much of a general, and was therefore willing to entrust the chief management of the war to Sulla. The latter reduced several Alpine tribes to subjection, and took such good care to keep his troops supplied with provisions, that on one occasion he was able to relieve the army of Marius as well as his own, a circumstance which, as Sulla said in his memoirs, greatly annoyed Marius. Sulla fought in the decisive battle, by which the barbarians were destroyed in B. c. 101. [CATULUs, No. 3; MARIUs, p. 956.] Sulla now returned to Rome, and appears to have lived quietly for some years without taking any part in public affairs. He became a candidate for the praetorship for the year B. c. 94, but failed. According to his own statement he lost his election because the people were disappointed at his not having previously offered himself for the aedileship, since they had been looking forward to a splendid exhibition of African wild beasts in the aedilician games of the friend of Bocchus. In the following year, however, he was more successful. He distributed money among the people with a liberal hand, and thus gained the praetorship for B. c. 93. In this office he gratified the wishes of the people by exhibiting in the Ludi Apollinares a hundred African lions, who were put to death in the circus by archers whom Bocchus had sent for the purpose. In the following year, b. c. 92, Sulla was sent as propraetor into Cilicia, and was especially commissioned by the senate to restore Ariobarzanes to his kingdom of Cappadocia, from which he had been expelled by Mithridates. Although Sulla had not the command of a large force, he met with complete success. He defeated Gordius, the general of Mithridates in Cappadocia, and Placed Ariobarzanes again on the throne. His occess attracted the attention of Arsaces, king of Parthia, who accordingly sent an embassy to him to solicit the alliance of the Roulan people. Sulla

was the first Roman general who had any official
intercourse with the Parthians, and he received
the ambassadors with the same pride and arro-
gance as the Roman generals were accustomed to
exhibit to the representatives of all foreign powers.
Soon after this interview Sulla returned to Rome,
where he was threatened in B. c. 91 by C. Censo-
rinus with an impeachment for malversation, but
the accusation was dropped.
The enmity between Marius and Sulla now
assumed a more deadly form. Sulla's ability and
increasing reputation had already led the aristocra-
tical party to look up to him as one of their leaders,
and thus political animosity was added to private
hatred. In addition to this Marius and Sulla were
both anxious to obtain the command of the im-
pending war against Mithridates; and the success
which attended Sulla's recent operations in the
East had increased his popularity, and pointed him
out as the most suitable person for this important
command. About this time Bocchus erected in
the Capitol gilded figures, representing the sur-
render of Jugurtha to Sulla, at which Marius was
so enraged that he could scarcely be prevented
from removing them by force. The exasperation
of both parties became so violent that they nearly
had recourse to arms against each other; but the
breaking out of the Social War, and the immediate
danger to which Rome was now exposed, hushed
all private quarrels, and made all parties fight
alike for their own preservation and that of the
republic. Never had Rome greater need of the
services of all her generals, and Marius and Sulla
both took an active part in the war against the
common foe. But Marius was now advanced in
years, and did not possess the same activity either
of mind or body as his younger rival. He had
therefore the deep mortification of finding that his
achievements were thrown into the shade by the
superior energy of his former quaestor, and that
his fortune paled more and more before the rising
sun. In B. c. 90 Sulla served as legate under the
consul L. Caesar, but his most brilliant exploits
were performed in the following year, when he
was legate of the consul L. Cato. In this year he
destroyed the Campanian town of Stabiae, defeated
L. Cluentius near Pompeii, and reduced the Hir-
pini to submission. He next penetrated into the
very heart of Samnium, defeated Papius Mutilus, the
leader of the Samnites, and followed up his victory
by the capture of Bovianum, the chief town of
this people. While he thus earned glory by his
enterprises against the enemy, he was equally suc-
cessful in gaining the affections of his troops. He
pardoned their excesses, and connived at their
crimes; and even when they put to death Albinus,
one of his legates and a man of praetorian rank,
he passed over the offence with the remark that
his soldiers would fight all the better, and atone for
their fault by their courage. As the time for the
consular comitia approached Sulla hastened to
Rome, where he was elected, almost unanimously,
consul for the year B. c. 88, with Q. Pompeius
Rufus as his colleague.
The war against Mithridates had now become
inevitable, and the Social War was not yet brought
to a conclusion. The senate assigned to Sulla the
command of the former, and to his colleague Pom-
peius the conduct of the latter. Marius, however,
would not resign without a struggle to his hated

rival the distinction which he had so long coveted;

[graphic][graphic]
« 前へ次へ »