Italian Unification: A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography

BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 70 GENERAL EDITOR: GEOFFREY WAYWELL

ITALIAN UNIFICATION A STUDY IN ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORIOGRAPHY

f HENRIK MOURITSEN

INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON

1998

The cover illustration is taken from Karl Theodor von Piloty's 'Thusnelda im Triumphzug des Germanicus Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Neue Pinakothek.

BICS SUPPLEMENT 70 ISBN 0 900587 81 4 First published in 1998 by the Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. © Henrik Mouritsen 1998 The right of Henrik Mouritsen to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and computer typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies Printed by Remous Limited, Milborne Port, Sherborne, Dorset DT95EP

CONTENTS Acknowledgements

vii

Introduction

1

I The making of the 'Italian question' The ancient tradition on the Social War

5

II 1 2 3 4

The making of second century Italy Theodor Mommsen and the 'Italian question'Political integration in second century Italy The romanisation of second century Italy The Roman citizenship

EI 1 2 3

Italian 'unification' The 'Italian question' in Roman politics 125-91 BC The outbreak of the Social War Latins, Italians, and the Roman citizenship

23 39 59 87

109 129 153

IV Postscript

173

Bibliography

177

Index

199

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During the work on this book I have received invaluable help and encouragement from many friends and colleagues, as well as practical and financial support from a number of institutions in both Denmark and England. I am very happy to thank, in particular, Tim Cornell, Michael Crawford, and John Patterson, who have offered both sound advice and frank criticism. John Carter, Peter Garnsey, Ittai Gradel, Patrick Kragelund, Inge Nielsen, Diura Thoden van Velzen, and Henrik Tvarn0, have also read and commented on the whole or parts of the book, for which I owe them many thanks. The responsibility for any remaining errors - and for the views expressed in the book - is of course my own. I am grateful also to Emma Dench who generously offered to improve my English text and provided friendly support throughout the last stages of this long and sometimes arduous process. I would especially like to thank my family and my friends for their support and interest in my work. In Denmark I am grateful to the Department of History at the University of Copenhagen, which granted me a research fellowship to initiate the project, and the Carlsberg Foundation, whose financial support allowed me to finish it. I also received practical assistance from the Department of History at the University of Odense. In Cambridge I received hospitality and support from Clare Hall, which granted me the Carlsberg-Clare Hall visiting fellowship, and from Darwin College. In London the Department of History at University College has provided a friendly environment from which I have greatly benefitted during the final revisions of the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION This study attempts to take a new look at an old question: the unification of Italy in the late Roman republic. The issue will be approached primarily as a historiographical problem, looking at the ways in which ancient and modern historians have dealt with this process of change in the Italian peninsula. Theoretically this approach is based on the presupposition that a clear-cut distinction between historiography and the writing of 'real' history is neither feasible nor desirable. A separation of historiography and 'history', relegating the former to a purely ancillary status, is epistemologically unsound: it relies on a positivist belief in 'facts', and the ability of the evidence, that is, products of the past, to suggest its own interpretations. If it is accepted that evidence only responds to the historian's questions, these themselves become valid objects of interest, inseparable from the past reality. All questions are asked from a modern viewpoint and relate - whether consciously or not - to existing scholarly traditions. Historiography may therefore offer an approach not only to our own explanatory strategies and preconceptions, but also to the past itself. Generally a complete scrutiny of the historiographical roots is not required to reassess a given problem. Since each generation writes its own history - to use a phrase that has almost become a banality - the past is often continuously updated under the influence of changing social, political, and economic conditions. The gradual evolution of historical interpretations means that in most areas the existing models, written from a perspective not radically different from the present, form the natural point of departure for further research. The 'Italian question', however, may call for a more explicitly historiographical evaluation, because in this case the revision process seems to have come to a halt in the nineteenth century. Since the first formulation of a general synthesis in mid nineteenth-century Germany this chapter of Roman history has remained remarkably resistent to change. The various trends and perspectives of modern historical scholarship have had little impact on the 'Italian question', the overall interpretational framework of which has remained largely unaltered. The endurance of this interpretation over some 150 years is striking, not least when compared with other central issues of Roman history, for example, early Rome, Roman 'party polities', the fall of the republic, and the character of the Augustan principate, all of which have undergone several transformations over the same period. When a particular version has become so well-established it carries with it an impetus and resistance to change, which can be challenged only by pointing out that it remains an inter­ pretation - favoured by ancient and modern historians, but based on a number of historical and ideological preconceptions, which may no longer be valid. The point is therefore to expand the scope of the discussion from specific elements within the existing model to the model itself, that is, its logical and narrative structure. By broadening the perspective the possibility of alternative interpretations of individual sources and events may emerge.

2

ITALIAN UNIFICATION

In the late republic, Italy was transformed politically as well as culturally. By the late third century BC Italy still presented a picture of diversity rather than uniformity. The peninsula was split into a large number of states - in alliance with Rome but maintaining full internal sovereignty. The political complexity was matched by an equally strong cultural plurality in languages and customs. Two hundred years later this situation had changed completely. Gone was the political diversity: the peninsula now constituted a single political entity with a common citizenship. Also the 'ethnic' plurality was difficult to trace; it had largely been replaced by a uniform Roman culture. Since the early nineteenth century much scholarship has been devoted to describing and explaining this process. Historians and archaeologists have scrutinised the structural features, the historical events and the underlying causes behind the transformation of Italy. Most scholars have worked within a model which sees the creation of a Roman Italy as the result of a long gradual convergence of Italians and Romans; a process which was accelerated when the Italians themselves began asking for Roman citizenship in the late second century. This request, initially refused by Rome, provoked the Social War which led to the enfranchisement of the allies, thus producing a politically unified Italy. The substance of this version can, I believe, be traced back to Mommsen's Römische Geschichte, which raises the question of whether it can still represent an adequate interpret­ ation by the end of the twentieth century. It would seem evident that irrespective of the many indisputable qualities of Mommsen's synthesis, his perspective on highly sensitive issues like national unification and sovereignty, the rights of the citizen, and cultural expansion/ imperialism, are now out of date. Viewed in this light - as a specific nineteenth-century inter­ pretation - the dated features of the 'convergence' theory become more apparent. As a political conflict between culturally distinct nations, this 'Italian issue' is nothing if not para­ doxical; a scenario of peoples subjected to foreign hegemony and exploitation spontaneously surrendering their sovereignty and culture in an attempt to join that hegemonic oppressor who was reluctant to admit them. To most modern observers the allied behaviour would seem to run directly counter to common expectations and experiences. Whenever expansionist powers in the past have claimed an almost harmonious fusion of neighbouring nations into their own, historians have rightly remained sceptical. This study attempts to apply a similar critical approach to the Roman version of the disappearance of the Italian nations. The ancient tradition of the 'Italian question', discussed in the opening chapter, operates with a series of political and military events stretching from Flaccus' citizenship bill in 125 to the Roman enfranchisement of the last remaining allies in the late 80's. The overriding theme of this process is the Roman citizenship: Italian demands for this status, Roman refusals, Italian insistence, and finally Roman concessions. Thus, the entire 'Italian question' ultimately depends on the meaning and implication of the ancient references to the citizenship issue. My point of departure here is an analysis of Appian and other sources, suggesting the existence of a different version, less favoured by imperial - and modern - historians. On this basis a working hypothesis is outlined according to which the Italians did not fight for mere citizenship. Their objectives, it is argued, may have been more ambitious; probably they sought a real power-sharing, giving them equal influence over the empire and its resources. When that was refused them, it was but a short step to turn away from Rome and try to break her supremacy by force.

INTRODUCTION

3

The four chapters that follow look at the structural background against which these political and military events took place. The struggle for citizenship has generally been seen as the consummation of a long process of integration, which evolved during the second century. This model will be discussed from a historical and historiographical viewpoint, asking what is the evidential basis for the convergence theory, and what function it performs within the broader narrative of the 'Italian issue'. Special attention is paid in these chapters to the logical relationship between the structural background drawn by modern scholarship and the events it is intended to explain. Mommsen's interpretation of Italian unification, as presented in his Römische Geschichte, has exerted a strong influence on the course taken by later research. The first of these chapters takes a closer look at this particular version, trying to locate it within the political and philosophical currents which existed in mid nineteenth-century Germany. Against the historiographical background, outlined here, three central elements of the modern 'Italian question' are then analysed: political integration, romanisation and the Roman citizenship, each representing a different, often complementary strategy to consolidate, improve and - tentatively - update Mommsen's model. The final part of the book turns to the political and military events, which make up the 'hard' historical core of the 'Italian question'; they will be reconsidered in the light of the historiographical analysis given in the previous chapters. It may be useful, however, at the outset to outline briefly the main elements of this process, and the central problems concerning its present reconstruction. According to the ancient sources the 'Italian question' first surfaced in 125, when Fulvius Flaccus supposedly suggested an enfranchisement of the Italians but withdrew in the face of strong opposition. A few years later C. Gracchus made an attempt at passing a modified version of this bill - with a similarly negative result. It took another generation before the issue re-emerged in Roman politics: in 91 Livius Drusus revived the bill, again without success, thus triggering the Italian revolt which turned into the Social War. While the war was raging in the peninsula, the Lex Julia was passed in 90, granting citizenship to the Latins and some of the Italians. During the subsequent struggle in Rome between Marius and Sulla, the franchise was extended to all the former Italian allies. At the same time full voting rights were granted to the new citizens, who were to be inscribed in all the Roman tribes. The final result was a politically unified Italy with a single Roman citizenship. This version of the 'Italian question' implies a strict linearity throughout the process. It relies on the assumption that from the first emergence of the question in 125 to the final settlement in the 80's we are dealing with a single consistent citizenship issue. The proposal made first by Flaccus and later revived by Drusus is perceived as identical with the Italian objectives in 91, which again coincided with the final settlement terms after the war. Thus, the solution first suggested in 125 was precisely the one which was implemented in 87 - after much pointless bloodshed. This linearity is historiographically problematic. History being a discipline of hindsight, it is advisable that neat correspondances of this type be treated with some suspicion. The point is that we know very little about both Roman citizenship bills prior to the war and the desires of the Italians. Our only certain information concerns the final outcome, that is, the politically unified Roman Italy which emerged after the war. The state of the evidence therefore itself imposes a certain finality on the whole process, which has - quite logically - been construed

4

ITALIAN UNIFICATION

as a build-up to the (known) end result. The pre-war citizenship issue is thus inferred from the status the Italians eventually received after the war - when the situation had changed drama­ tically. To draw direct inferences from the final stage of a conflict to its earlier phases is clearly a hazardous exercise - in this case further hampered by the extent - and date - of the literary evidence. For the linearity is based largely on the testimony of a single ancient source, Appian, who wrote more than two hundred years after the events. Several aspects of his account seem peculiar, and, as will be argued in the first chapter, it also contains literary features, that may explain the particular structure of his 'Italian question'. Historically, the consistency of the citizenship issue - despite profoundly changing condi­ tions and circumstances - raises several questions. There are obvious risks involved in assuming that the demands of sovereign allies speaking from a fairly strong military position in 91 were identical not only to the concessions Rome had already tentatively considered, but also to the position Rome eventually decided to grant her defeated foes. Moreover, the supposed consistency of the 'Italian issue' is challenged by the Social War itself. Most scholars now agree that, with the foundation of the new state 'Italia', the aims of the insurgents had moved far beyond mere enfranchisement. In other words, at the most crucial moment of the conflict the claimed linearity was decisively broken - an awkward point carefully avoided in Appian's version. Obviously, there are serious difficulties in rewriting a story-line against the sources, or in this case, source. Any alternative version will inevitably have to remain conjectural, based on fragments, inferences and circumstantial arguments. But the primary ambition is not so much to establish a new account of 'what really happened', which is obviously beyond our reach. The aim is to put the present version into perspective, pointing out that it is essentially a modern story told on the basis of a barely known ancient story. As part of this project the possibility of establishing an alternative course of events is explored in the last chapters of this study. For the sake of clarity, and readability, many discussions have been reduced to a minimum; often only the overall structure of previous arguments is outlined. Obviously the bibliography does not aim at completeness either - itself an impossible and futile ambition when dealing with a subject so vast and so extensively debated.

I THE MAKING OF THE 'ITALIAN QUESTION' 1 THE ANCIENT TRADITION ON THE SOCIAL WAR The 'Italian question' is centred around the Social War: without this major event there would hardly have been any issue to debate. The Italian allies revolted against Rome, were defeated and eventually absorbed into the Roman state. But what were they fighting for? The ancient sources are sparse and generally not very detailed. Still, it may be argued that the tradition of the war as a fight for citizenship was not the only one in antiquity. It may have coexisted with a view of the war as a struggle against Roman domination. The ancient evidence appears to fall into two parts: Appian, our only source of any substance, and the remaining evidence, which consists of short excerpts and fragments, scattered references, and brief summaries.1 Beginning with the latter group of sources, an attempt will be made to demonstrate the existence of these two versions of the Social War and trace their origins. Because of the sparse nature of the evidence any conclusion will necessarily have to remain conjectural, but a case can be made that the citizenship version may have been a later interpretation, superimposed on an alternative tradition which saw the war as an attempt to overthrow Roman domination. Our earliest historiographical source offering a view on Italian motives is Photius' excerpts of Diodorus' bibliotheké, written in the second half of the first century BC. This is widely believed to have been based on Posidonius' Roman history, which was probably written around 70-65.2 The exact relationship between Diodorus and his sources is disputed: his own contribution may have been somewhat larger, especially in the proems, than has previously been assumed.3 Nevertheless there seems to be little doubt that generally he relied heavily on a single source - in this part likely to have been Posidonius. Though Posidonius was contem­ porary with the events, his history hardly qualifies as an eyewitness account. He was a Greek writer living outside Italy (during the war he stayed in Rhodes), and despite personal contacts with exiled Roman nobles (for example Rutilius and Cotta) his work must to a large extent have been based on other Roman accounts.4 1 A full survey of the extant sources is given in I. Haug, 'Der römische Bundesgenossenkrieg 91-88 v.Chr. bei Titus Livius' WJA 2 (1947) 100-39, 201-58; here only those offering a view on the causes and character of the war will be considered. 2

E.g. E. Schwarz, 'Diodorus' RE 5 (1903) 663-704, esp. 663, 669, 690f, F. Cassola, 'Diodoro e la storia romana', ANRWU 30,1 (1982) 724-73, esp. 763-73, with literature, J. Malitz, Die Historien des Poseidonios (Munich 1983) 34-42.

3

Thus Cassola (1982) 726, K. S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton 1990), but see also C. W. Fornara's review of the latter, CP 87 (1992) 383-8.

4

Cassola (1982) 766-78, K. Reinhardt, Tosidonios' RE 22,\ (1953) 558-826; for his life see esp. 563-67, Malitz (1983).

6

ITALIAN UNIFICATION

Diodorus makes numerous references to the objectives of the Italians. The war, we are told in 37,2,2, flared up when Drusus' promise of the 'much coveted Roman citizenship' was not fulfilled. This explanation also underlies the so-called 'Oath of Philippus', 37,11, probably a piece of political fabrication against Drusus, which was alleged to be an oath of loyalty sworn by prospective beneficiaries of his enfranchisement bill. Likewise in the description of the Marsic march on Rome, 37,13, where Poppaedius intended to 'surround the senate with armed men and demand citizenship'. In the story of the fraternisation between Romans and Marsians, Diodorus, 37,15, relates how Marius and Poppaedius: '... discussed at length the question of peace and the longed-for citizenship'. Finally in 37,18 a Cretan turned an offer of citizenship down with the words: 'Grant your reward of citizenship to the men who are now quarrelling over that very thing, and who are purchasing with blood this empty word for which men fight'. In other passages, however, Diodorus follows a quite different line of argument. The situation is thus summarised as: '... the nations of Italy revolted against Rome's domination (hegemonia) ...',37,1,6. And the outcome of the war, extending the citizenship to the Italians, is not seen as a Roman compromise, on the contrary: '... Rome's power (kratos) was firmly established' in the Social War, 37,2,3. Later the Italian motives are described even more unequivocally: 'The Italians, who so many times before had fought with distinction on behalf of Rome's hegemonia, were now risking life and limb to secure their own, ...', 37,22. More­ over, in 37,14 Diodorus notes that the Italian leaders shared their booty with the soldiers in order to encourage them to '... undertake the struggle for freedom (eleutheria) with a willing heart'. Other parts of his story also seem to support this interpretation of the war. The anec­ dote about the Latin comedian, set during the riots at Asculum, reveals strong anti-Roman sentiments among the Italians, 37,12. And Diodorus' detailed description of the new Italian state, 37,2,4-7, does, despite his attempt to dismiss it as a copy of Rome, demonstrate the de­ finitive character of the Italian secession. Their determination to fight Rome to the bitter end also appears from the embassy to Mithridates, on which Diodorus is our only source, 37,2,11. This confusion of two different versions is also apparent in Strabo's short summary of the war, 5,4,2, which may have been influenced by Posidonius.5 According to Strabo the Italians fought until: '... they achieved the partnership (koinonia) for which they went to war'. But they also broke away (apestesan), setting up a 'common city for all the Italians, instead of Rome'. These two trends are even juxtaposed in one and the same sentence, when Strabo defines their objectives as both eleutheria and politeia. The lengthy Livian account has been preserved only in short second-hand summaries, often of poor quality, which rarely comment on the causes of the war. Generally, however, the franchise issue features prominently in the descriptions of Drusus' tribunate. In this context Florus tells that: 'ius civitatis ... socii ... postularent', adding that: 'eadem fax, quae ilium (Drusum) cremavit, socios in arma et expugnationem urbis accendit', 2,6,3f. But elsewhere in the Livian tradition traces of another version seem to surface. Eutropius, 5,3, states that the Italian peoples: 'libertatem sibi aequam asserere coeperunt', and also Orosius, 5,18,2, makes reference, albeit rather confused, to libertas as an Italian objective.

5

Cf. e.g. Haug (1947) 219.

THE MAKING OF THE 'ITALIAN QUESTION' - THE ANCIENT TRADITION

7

In Plutarch's anecdote about Poppaedius visiting Drusus in 91, an attempt to force the young Cato to support the Italian cause is mentioned, Cato 2,1-4. The background is outlined as: *... the Italian allies of the Romans were making efforts to obtain Roman citizenship', and Poppaedius is alleged to have made this request: '... help us in our struggle for citizenship'. This ambition is, however, contradicted by Plutarch's own characterisation of the Social War in the biography of Marius, 32,3: '... the most warlike and most numerous of the Italian peoples combined against Rome, and came within a little of destroying her supremacy (Hege­ mon ia)1.6 The above examples demonstrate, I believe, the existence of two different traditions already in the first century BC. Attempts have been made to explain the two versions as chronological or geographical aspects of the same course of events. However, a fight for citizenship cannot easily be reconciled with a subsequent fight to destroy Rome's power: the political and cultural background which the two versions entail would seem to be fundamentally different. It is, moreover, an entirely modern solution to the historiographical problem facing us; no ancient source describes such a development. Neither is there any evidence indicating a dis­ crepancy between the objectives of the northern rebels and the Samnites.7 They took part in the same revolt and Italia was founded as a common state for all the rebels - the new capital was even located in the northern, supposedly more Rome-friendly region.8 The Samnites did continue the warfare after the others had given in. Still, that rather suggests a difference in military strength than in political aims, the Samnites being the strongest of the insurgent peoples. Clearly, therefore, the two versions of the Social War combined in the ancient sources are not complementary but contradictory. The origins of the citizenship interpretation of the war may be traced to a number of historical factors, most of which will be dealt with in greater detail in the chapters below. It is possible that some of the events in the turbulent period 91 to 87, when the whole situation in Rome and Italy was rapidly changing, may have been confused by later writers (or perhaps even contemporary provincials), thus inspiring the image of the war as a fight for Roman citizenship. The enfranchisement bills did play an important role in Drusus' tribunate - and met a deep-felt desire for such concessions (among the Latins?). Rome was, furthermore, hard-pressed by (Latin?) demands for citizenship when she passed the Lex Julia, which paved the way for a general enfranchisement of Italy. Finally the (defeated) rebels did make explicit 6

For Posidonius as a possible source on Marius see Reinhardt (1953) 638, Cassola (1982) 768, Malitz (1983) 57f, 395 n.305.

7

Contra e.g. P. A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic (Oxford 1988) 110, F. W. Walbank, 'Nationality as a factor in Roman history', Selected Papers (Cambridge 1985) 55-76, 63, A. Heuss, Römische Geschichte, 2nd ed. (Braunschweig 1964) 162. 3

Some Italians refused to join the revolt, cf. below p. 158. But the existence of these divisions between - and even within - allied communities does not affect the point made here. Generally we have no reason to believe that such disagreements sprang from a split between 'pro' and 'anti-Roman' elements. Romanisation seems to have played no part, and no cultural or historical patterns can be gleaned from these divisions. Rather they reflected different views on the political and military situation, i.e. the prospects of the whole enterprise on which the Italians were now embarking. Clearly it would be unrealistic to expect complete unanimity on a crucial decision as was the resolve to rise against Roman hegemony.

8

ITALIAN UNIFICATION

requests for the Roman citizenship. It takes little imagination to see how these elements could have been conflated into a single 'Italian issue' focused on the citizenship.9 Contemporary political propaganda in Rome may have contributed to this development. Already in the winter 91/90 an equestrian court was set up to prosecute Drusus' supporters, who were accused of having instigated the revolt. Immediately it became vital for the pro­ secutors to demonstrate intimate connections between the late tribune and the rebels.10 This image of Drusus as the friend of the Italians (and not just the Latins, as I shall argue below) would later have furnished the link between his citizenship bill, the Lex Julia, and the subsequent enfranchisement of the Italians. Also the political strife in the 80's may have distorted the picture. Diodorus tells an anecdote about amicable negotiations on enfranchise­ ment between Marius and Poppaedius as early as 90. This may plausibly have been a senatorial attempt to intimate illicit connections between Marius and the Italian enemy, to whom he and Sulpicius tried to grant (formal) political rights in Rome in 88. The original antiMarian character of this story is suggested by the general bias of Posidonius, who was deeply critical of Marius.11 Like the campaign against Drusus, this contemporary smear may later have also become part of a citizenship interpretation of the war. After the war, the process began which gradually transformed Italy into a unitary Roman state. The first century BC probably saw the disappearance of the indigenous Italian languages, most of their cultural distinctiveness vanished as romanization progressed effectively promoted by colonisation, break up of traditional settlement patterns, loss of political autonomy and the virtual genocide of the Samnites, who had formed the backbone of Oscan-speaking Italy. The former allies also became politically integrated into Rome, but not as an independent power block within the new territorial state. Split into numerous municipalities with limited political influence they were reduced to a provincial periphery around a Roman centre. Some Italian nobles slowly made their way into the senate. Most of them, however, stayed at home as domi nobiles, occasionally turning up for the consular or praetorian elections where they might bring some influence to bear. Ideologically, however, they had an important role to play. In Cicero's political thinking the local Italian nobilities embodied ancient virtue and respectability; they came to represent the solid corner-stone on which a new consensus could be built.12 This process of integration meant that the foreign character of the Italians peoples disappeared and they became a stable part of the Roman power structure. Therefore, as the first century progressed, the notion of an Italian threat to Rome would have seemed ever more unreal.

9

Certain elements may have influenced some writers in particular. Posidonius, for instance, arrived at Rome in 87, when the franchise and tribal distribution were still being vigorously disputed. This personal experience of the last stages of the war may plausibly have left an impact on his perception of the overall role played by the citizenship issue. 10 Cf. Livy. per. 71: 'Propter quae Livius Drusus invisus etiam senatui factus velut socialis belli auctor ...', Pliny, HN25,21,52: 'Drusum ... Optimates vero bellum Marsicum inputavere ...'.

"Cf. Cassola (1982) 766-8. 12

See e.g. E. Lepore, 4Da Cicerone a Ovidio. Un aspetto di storia sociale e culturale', PP 13 (1958) 80130.

THE MAKING OF THE 'ITALIAN QUESTION' - THE ANCIENT TRADITION

9

The character of the Roman citizenship also changed during the first century BC. Gradually it became separated from Roman territory and nationality (a process reinforced not least by the extensions after the Social War) and turned into a superior legal status, which could be held by foreigners irrespective of domicile - and in addition to their local citizenship. The Roman citizenship, in other words, became the highest level on a new status ladder, which now included the whole empire. The process gained impetus in the second half of the century, when double citizenship slowly became an accepted norm.13 At this time a grant of Roman citizenship could therefore with some justification be described as a maxumum beneficium (cf. Ps.-Sallust, epist. ad Caes. 6,4). Earlier the citizenship may have been a high priority for provincial nobles who aspired to a career in Rome, the Gaditane L. Cornelius Balbus being the obvious example. Most provincials, however, may still have been less enthusiastic.14 The position of Diodorus (and his likely source Posidonius) is illuminating on this issue. It is hardly mere coincidence that the earliest source is also the only one to describe explicitly the citizenship as 'much coveted' and 'longed-for', 37,2,2; 37,15: later historians all seem to take the attraction of the citizenship for granted. Apparently Posidonius, writing in the 60's for a non-Roman readership, had felt obliged to explain the alleged cause of the war. Also Diodorus' anecdote 37,18 about the Cretan who declined an offer of citizenship may have reflected a provincial (Posidonian?) wonder at an Italian fight for enfranchisement. The implication is that at this moment the citizenship was not yet considered a universal privilege; by the end of the century, however, this situation had changed completely. The transformation of republican Italy meant that the world known to later historians of the Social War bore little resemblance to the period they were describing. The cultural and political diversity of pre-war Italy had gone, leaving few traces. An Italian attempt to over­ throw Roman domination thus appeared an increasingly fantastic scenario. Roman citizenship, on the other hand, had become an attractive option to any ambitious foreigner. Therefore, the changes in the first century BC rendered an Italian quest for citizenship an ever more plausible explanation of the war - and the politically most acceptable.15 Viewed against this historical background it is hardly surprising to find the war portrayed as a fight for enfranchisement: indeed the very survival of the anti-Roman version is remark­ able. Its appearance in a number of sources, Diodorus, Strabo, Livy, Plutarch, demonstrates the strength of the alternative tradition. Naturally it features most prominently in the early sources, which were more inclined than later writers to accept its plausibility: Diodorus/Posidonius, as we saw, may have been less convinced by the idea of a bloody struggle over the citizenship. Moreover, the war seems to have lived on in popular memory as a genuine trial of strength between Romans and Italians. In Augustan times Ovid could still praise his native region in these terms: 'Paelignae dicar gloria gentis ego, quam sua libertas ad honesta coeg13

For this development see below p. 87-91.

14

Cf. M. H. Crawford, 'Greek Intellectuals and the Roman Aristocracy', in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. P. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (Cambridge 1978) 193-207, 195. 15 Asconius 22C demonstrates howfirmlyestablished this tradition was already in thefirsthalf of the first century AD. Apparently using Cicero's De or. 3,8, Asconius, almost as a conditioned reflex, in­ serted a reference to the citizenship issue for which there was no basis in his source - inadvertently con­ tradicting other statements about the quaestiones Variae made elsewhere in his commentary. Cf. p. 134.

10

ITALIAN UNIFICATION

erat arma, cum timuit socias anxia Roma manus', Am. 3,15,8-10. Born at Sulmo in 43 BC, Ovid is likely to express a local tradition of the Social War as a glorious moment when the Italians had stood up to Rome and fought for their freedom. The persistence of this tradition is also implied by Pompeius Trogus, 38,4,13: '... Italiam ... non iam libertatem, sed consortium imperii civitatisque poscentem', which refers directly to the other view, thus suggesting a split in the ancient tradition. If no one had thought the war to have been anti-Roman, such assertions would have been superfluous. The dominant tradition here relates to and coexists with a version which is most likely to go back to con­ temporary views of the Social War. In Velleius 2,27,2 the following statement is attributed to the Samnite leader Pontius Telesinus before the battle of Porta Collina, when Sulla defeated his Roman opponents and their Italian allies: '... dictitansque adesse Romanis ultimum diem vociferabatur eruendam delendamque urbem, adiciens numquam defuturos raptores Italicae libertatis lupos, nisi silva, in quam refugere solerent, esset excisa'. This story appears to be the only part of the antiRoman tradition that we might plausibly suspect to be a later fabrication. It may have originated in the Sullan propaganda against the Marians, which had tried to portray the civil war as a crusade against Rome's oldest and most obstinate enemy, the Samnites.16 There is no need, however, to posit a general rewriting of the Social War. The story works on the premise that the Samnites were widely believed to have fought against Roman domination.17 What Sulla may have done, was simply to project the anti-Roman element of the Social War up to the Civil War in order to discredit his opponents, who had been joined by the former enemies of Rome. One single pre-Appianic source completely ignores the alternative tradition. Describing Drusus' tribunate and the Social War, Velleius, 2,15-17, omits any reference to the antiRoman version, though later he quotes the Telesinus speech, which undermines his own concept. Velleius' account is, however, also in another respect unique, moulded as it is around the story of his Hirpinian ancestor Minatius Magius, who had actively supported Rome during the war. Viewed in this light, the absence of the freedom aspect is scarcely surprising. If the Italians had fought for independence, Magius would not have been a hero but a traitor to the Italian cause. To avoid this embarrassing implication the anti-Roman character of the revolt had to be suppressed. That on the other hand raised the question why a man so deeply romanised as Magius apparently was had not joined the fight for Roman citizenship. Velleius solved this problem ingeniously by turning the conflict into a civil war; the Italians, he claimed, were in fact Romans, defined as: 'homines eiusdem et gentis et sanguinis', 2,15,2.18 In this context Magius became a true hero, who had refused to turn against his Roman brothers and was justly rewarded for his loyalty. Velleius' account of the war thus appears as a carefully designed background for his own private family history. 16

Cf. E. f. Salmon, 'Sulla Redux', Ath. 42 (1964) 60-79, E. S. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149-78 B.C. (Cambr. Mass. 1968) 254. 17

Cf. A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship (Oxford 1973) 2nd ed., 149 n.3, contra Brunt (1988) HOf. 18

This is thefirsttime the war is presented as a civil war in our sources. Later this view is found in e.g. Florus, 2,6,1.

THE MAKING OF THE 'ITALIAN QUESTION' - THE ANCIENT TRADITION

11

In sum, the sparse pre-Appianic evidence seems to combine two traditions, which are not only alternatives but essentially different. And while a number of historical factors may be adduced to explain the appearance of the citizenship motif in our sources, the freedom motif finds no such explanation. Appian's account represents our only substantial narrative of the 'Italian question'. It has therefore formed the cornerstone of modern interpretations, which have been almost directly moulded around this particular version. However, when evaluating its reliability and tendency, it is important to bear in mind that Appian is not only our longest source but also one of our latest. The Roman citizenship plays a dominant role in Appian's story; in fact there is no trace whatever of the alternative tradition, which still managed to surface in the earlier sources. Con­ sidering Appian's date this feature is in itself hardly surprising. As noted above, the transform­ ation of Italy and the Roman citizenship meant a gradual undermining of this line of explanation. Moreover, a citizenship interpretation of the war would have been far more appealing to Appian personally than the anti-Roman version, which found no resonance in his own experiences. Born towards the end of the first century AD in Alexandria, Appian first made a respectable administrative career in his home town.19 Having reached high posts in Alexandria, Appian later obtained equestrian offices in Rome; in his old age he even received the honorary title of imperial procurator (in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus). He appears to have died in the 160's, before finishing the Roman history, which was probably begun around the middle of the century. Appian's rise in the imperial administration was made possible through a personal grant of Roman citizenship, presumably made while he was still an Alexandrian official. His own career therefore represents an excellent illustration of the social and economic advantages that might be derived from Roman enfranchisement. Confronted with the Italian issue of the late republic, Appian would have been able to empathise instinctively with an allied wish for Roman citizenship. To Appian the franchise version was a perfectly plausible account, indeed the only acceptable one offered to him. His historical work was written as a tribute to the greatness of the Roman empire, presented by a grateful provincial civil servant.20 Within this conceptual framework an attempt by the Italians (by then indistinguishable from Romans) to overthrow Roman rule in the first century BC (and usurp the empire!) could have no natural place. Appian's text, however, is not simply a more elaborate version of earlier interpretations which had already suggested a connection between the war and Drusus' citizenship bill. In Appian we find an Italian question which is different in both structure and detail. Important discrepancies can be pointed out between Appian's version and the other sources. The beginning of the process is put as far back as 125, when Flaccus' enfranchisement bill is presented as a direct forerunner of Drusus' in 91. This version, however, ignores important parts of the proposal, incidentally known through Valerius Maximus. Likewise Drusus' tribunate appears in a wholly different light; as we shall see, the political purpose and 19 For Appian's life see E. Schwartz, 'Appianus' RE 2,1 (1895) 216-37, 216, K. Brodersen, Appian von Alexandria. Römische Geschichte I (Stuttgart 1987) If, id. 'Appian und sein Werk', ANRW 11,34,1 (1993) 339-63, 352-4, A. M. Gowing, The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Michigan 1992)9-18. 20

Most clearly expressed in the proemium 24, 43-47. Cf. Brodersen (1993) 355f.

12

ITALIAN UNIFICATION

chronology of Drusus' programme, described by Appian, have no parallel in the other sources. Also some of the chapters on the Social War are at variance with our remaining evidence; the chronology of the outbreak appears to have been altered, and the circumstances and chronology of the grant of citizenship by the Lex Julia are also open to doubt. Therefore, on several key points Appian's story receives little corroboration from other ancient sources. This situation asks for an explanation. Most scholars have tried to solve the problem by tracing the historiographical origins of the Appianic version.21 With its focus on possible sources previous research has thus been under the spell of the German tradition of Quellen­ forschung?2 This approach now raises a number of methodological and practical questions. The tradition of Quellenforschung and its attempts to trace and distinguish the (lost) sources of ancient accounts originated in a positivist belief in the historian's ability to separate fact and fiction.23 This approach, however, often failed to take into account the literary aspect of ancient historiography. The modern distinction between fiction and historiography, however tenuous it may be, was not considered a crucial one in antiquity. The strict rules imposed to maintain this division were therefore of little relevance to the Roman historian. With regret it has gradually been recognised that he did not share modern ideals of 'objectivity', transparency in argument, loyalty to sources, and accountability through proper references to sources and secondary literature. Still, it has rarely been fully recognised how differently he actually perceived his function of 'historian'.24 Basically the relationship between the historical text and the past 'reality' was not perceived in terms of direct referentiality; to the ancient historian this link seems to have been more 'poetic' in nature. It follows that the perception of the historian's task was quite different from the one which has prevailed in the western world since the mid nineteenth century. The idea of the historian as a 'judge' exercising justice at history's high court by separating true from false would not have been familiar to Roman practitioners of the craft. The line between past and present was not always drawn very sharply: the past was very much alive in the present and thus open to constant

21

For a survey see Schwartz (1895), Brodersen (1987) 5f, id. (1993) 256-9, W. Will, Appian von Alexandria. Römische Geschichte II (Stuttgart 1989) 2-4, D. Magnino, 'Le guerre civili di Appiano', ANRW 11,34,1 (1993) 533-54, 547-9. The most important contributions are E. Gabba, Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili (Florence 1956), P. J. Cuff, 'Prolegomena to a critical edition of Appian, B.C. F, Historia 16 (1967) 177-88, I. Hahn, 'Appian und seine Quellen', in Romanitas-Christianitas. Festschrift J. Straub (Berlin-New York 1982) 251-76. 22

Thus explicitly Cuff (1967) 177: '... Quellenforschung ... is the basis ... on which a solution to the historical problems of the period 133-70 B.C. must rest'.

23 F. G. Maier, 'Der Historiker und die Texte', HZ 238 (1984) 83-94, 88, has given this incisive definition of the positivist view of historical texts: 'Der historische Positivismus geht von der Annahme aus, dass sich in den Texten des Historikers Inhalt (gleich Information über vergangene Wirklichkeit), eingebrachte Vorverständnisse und literarische Form problemlos trennen lassen. Durch innere und äussere Quellenkritik sind darum aus Texten Tatsachen zu erschliessen, die durch Interpretation des Historikers Zusammenhang und Erklärung erhalten'. 24

Cf. T. P. Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics (Leicester 1979), 3-53, A. J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London 1988).

THE MAKING UFTHE 'ITALIAN QUESTION' - THE ANCIENT TRADITION

13

25

chance and rewriting. It performed a practical function in the present, adaptable to the literary, ideological, and political needs of the moment. Essentially therefore the writing of history was a literary genre, closely related to rhetoric and philosophy, and subjected to artistic as well as didactic/propagandist objectives. As Woodman has argued, an element of invention must be accepted as an integral part of ancient historiography.26 The basic character of ancient historical writing thus poses yet another objection to the approach of the Quellen­ forschung: later inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and even distortions, may be manageable within this universe but hardly a literary rewriting of the past. The traditional search for sources also seems difficult to reconcile with our (few) indications of the working methods employed by the ancient historians. Though the details are shrouded in great uncertainty, a three-phased procedure appears to have been common. First suitable material was excerpted from other sources and roughly arranged according to topic, then a plain, unadorned account was written, and finally a stylistically more elaborated version was composed.27 The collection of material from a variety of sources, first formed into a continuous narrative at a later stage, means that the search for the source becomes a some­ what futile exercise. The historian may have drawn more heavily on some sources than others - presumably the first to be excerpted would have been more fully represented. But the final product could never be reduced to its individual components. They had become part of a new text, which remained the sole responsibility of the later writer/excerptor.28 Viewed against this background any attempt to trace the origins of the Appianic version back to individual (lost) sources faces great methodological difficulties. Furthermore, the most widespread identification - now most forcefully defended by Gabba - of Asinius Pollio as Appian's source on this period has the distinct character of a rescue operation: an attempt to save some of our few remnants of republican history.29 According to this theory, Pollio, himself of Italian origins, was partial to the Italian cause, to which he is supposed to have devoted considerable attention. The unique Appianic version of the 'Italian question' would therefore have derived from a highly qualified early source, which reflected an Italian view­ point on the conflict. The implications are paradoxical; despite the numerous shortcomings otherwise recognised in Appian's work, his credibility is restored in the paragraphs 7-239, which happen to be the only coherent narrative we have for the period 133 to 88. In other 25

See Woodman (1988), T. P. Wiseman, 'Lying Historians: Seven Types of Mendacity', in Lies and Fiction in the Ancient World, ed. id. and C. Gill (Exeter 1993) 122-46.

26

Woodman (1988) passim, esp. 87-94, cf. M. I. Finley, Ancient History: Evidence and Models (London 1985) 9, who noted that 'the ability of thè ancients to invent and their capacity to believe are persistently underestimated'.

27

For the working methods of ancient scholars and historians see e.g. J. E. Skydsgaard, Varro. The Scholar, ARID Suppl. 4 (Rome 1968) 101-16. 28 29

Cf. F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964) 28.

Gabba (1956) 13-89, J. Kühne, 'Appians historiographische Leistung', Wiss. Zeitschr. Univ. Rostock 18 (1969) 345-77, 345, G Zecchini, 'Asinio Pollione: Dall'attività politica alla riflessione storiografica', ANRW 11,30,2 (1982) 1265-96, 1282f; contra Schwartz (1895), E. Badian, review of Gabba (1956) CR 8 (1958) 160-2, M. Gelzer, review of Gabba (1956) Gnomon 30 (1958) 217, Cuff (1967) 185-8, S. Mazzarino, Il pensiero storico classico (Roma-Bari 1983) II 398ff, 533f, W. Steidle, 'Beobachtungen zu Appians "'Eii