Here is a VERY rough draft of my first paragraph. It's sitting at 491 words as of this post, and the referencing is the same as what I used for my notes, as I am on my laptop and I don't have a word processing program which supports such advanced features. I would love feedback, as I'm not sure if I've talked enough about the removal of destabilising people through the proscriptions. Also, have a feeling I need more primary source material in my essay, but to be frank, Plutarch is neither useful nor helpful, as his work focuses largely on Sulla as a person, providing little other than background information.
The
Great Proscription was mostly beneficial to Sulla's attempts to
stabilise the Roman Republic, though its misuse detracted from its
effectiveness in his endeavor It was a masterpiece of legislation,
allowing Sulla to replenish the treasury which had been reduced
significantly in size to fund Marius's side of the Civil War,
securing the future of the Roman economy, whilst allowing Sulla to
remove the elements of Roman society he believed were sources of
dissent and instability within the republic. That is not to say that
he was unjust in his proscriptions; not all those who supported
Marius in a physical or financial manner were added to the list, for
those in Sulla's sights were people, “whose only offense was their
wealth” (2, 264), rather than those he would have reason to seek
revenge against. The proscription and subsequent deaths of almost
five thousand citizens, “filled the public treasury to overflowing”
(2, 265), despite the allocation of, “two talents” (4, 182), each
to those who fulfilled the bounty on a proscribed, and the low prices
put on the auctioned property. Furthermore, through the sale, “to
allied and friendly cities their freedom” (8), that which for most
had been lost over the entire military career of Sulla and Marius, a
total of three hundred and fifty million sesterces were added to the
Roman coffers, as calculated by Beesly. In the freeing of these
cities and in the acquirement of property by individuals at these
bargain prices, Sulla, “bound buyers to his interests” (4, 183),
ensuring support for future changes made under his dictatorship. The
proscription was however abused to some extent, an unavoidable
occurrence due to the many debts accrued by Sulla over the course of
the Civil War. Through Sulla's secretary, Chrysogonus, it was
possible for Sextus Roscius of Ameria to be proscribed, “murdered
by two of his kinsmen” (2, 264), and then through further bribery, have his innocent son, “charged...with having killed his father” (4, 182). So too
was it possible for Lucius Sergius Catilina to, “legalis[e] his
position” (2, 264), and further his political career through the
proscription of his brother. It is unlikely that Sulla intended for
such abuse of his proscriptions, by the very nature of the goal of
stability he sought, as these actions, “unravel[led]...the fabric
of law and order [Sulla] was attempting to weave” (2, 265). Indeed,
it is evident that he made attempts, however weak, to combat such
negative influences on the stability he was trying to bring,
blocking Crassus from any further official employment after his
seizing of unofficially proscribed property. More severe, and
justified, action was unavailable to Sulla for Baker claims he,
“ow[ed] a great many people too much” (2, 265), to go against
their interests too severely, an action which would cause more
instability than that done by the abuse of the proscriptions alone. Therefore, Sulla's inability to stop the abuse of the Great Proscription detracted from its ability to increase the stability of the Roman Republic under Sulla's dictatorship.
No comments:
Post a Comment