CHAPTER VIII
1 SOURCES FOR 44–31 B.C. The main narrative for these years is given by Appian (BC, iii–v; down to 35 B.C.) and Dio Cassius (xlv–liii). Appian is the more valuable; he made use of the History of Asinius Pollio (who fought on the side of Antony and later maintained a reserved attitude towards Augustus). Until his death in 43 B.C. Cicero’s Letters and Philippics are an invaluable source. The poets, Horace and Virgil, begin to throw light on their age, although their major work falls after 31. The Memoirs of Augustus (not extant) were used by Livy (whose work here survives merely in the Periochae) and by Velleius Paterculus (who gives a brief narrative). Plutarch’s Life of Antony is valuable; though not sympathetic to Antony, it provides a stirring account of his Parthian campaign (which derives from Dellius, one of Antony’s officers who was an eye-witness of the campaign) and at the end (from ch. 77) it makes use of the Memoirs of Cleopatra’s physician, Olympus. Suetonius’ Life of Augustus and Augustus’ own Res Gestae begin to be of service. One difficulty of the later part of the period, when Appian’s narrative fails, is that both Antony and Octavian and their supporters indulged in a vicious propaganda campaign against each other: in particular by representing his cause as that of Italy and the western tradition, Octavian overemphasized the orientalizing of Antony’s character and the influence of Cleopatra. The finest literary expression of this view, which became official with the victory of Octavian, may be found in Virgil’s description of the battle of Actium (Aeneid, viii); it is also represented in less lofty forms. On this confusing political propaganda see K. Scott, Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome, 1933, pp. 1 ff.; M. P. Charlesworth, Cl. Qu., 1933, 172 ff. Modern authorities for 44–31 B.C. include T. Rice Holmes, The Architect of the Roman Empire, i (1928); M. A. Levi, Ottaviano Capoparte (1933); CAH. X, chs. i–iii (1934); R. Syme, Rom. Rev., chs. vii–xxi; H. Frisch, Cicero’s Fight for the Republic (1946); J. M. Carter, The Battle of Actium (1970), which covers the period 44–31 B.C. F. Millar (JRS, 1973, 50 ff.) has surveyed the Triumviral period in relation to the emergence of the principate, and in particular assesses the extent to which the institutions of the res publica remained active during this period when the Triumvirate was superimposed upon them but did not replace them. In the process he examines the triumviral documents from the Greek East, including some hitherto unpublished documents from Aphrodisias (among them two letters of Octavian). On this extremely important group of documents see J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (1982). [p. 131]
2 ANTONY’S FUNERAL ORATION. According to Suetonius (Iul. 84, 2) Antony in place of a laudatio had read out a decree of the Senate honouring Caesar and the oath by which the Senate had pledged his safety; Antony then ‘added a very few words of his own’. Appian (BC, ii, 144–5) attributes a short speech to him which is more conciliatory than his actions. Dio Cassius (xliv, 36 ff.) gives a very long speech. M. E. Deutsch (Univ. California Publ. Cl. Arch. 1928) has argued in support of Suetonius, but Cicero, Phil. 2, 91, may support the traditional view of a longer formal speech. [p. 132]
3 CAESAR’S ADOPTION OF OCTAVIAN. For the content of Caesar’s will see above, pp. 150, 155, 156, 157. Suetonius (Iul. 83) records that Octavian was named first heir to three-quarters of the estate and his two cousins received the rest; then at the end of the will (‘in ima cera’) Octavian was adopted ‘in familiam nomenque’. At best Octavian’s adoption must have been conditional upon Calpurnia not bearing Caesar a posthumous son, a contingency for which Caesar had provided in his will: and there are doubts about the precise legal meaning of testamentary adoption. Such doubts have therefore led W. Schmitthenner (Oktavian und das Testament Cäsars2, 1973) to suggest that Octavian’s adoption was achieved by him through the lex curiata as a political master-stroke. But although there are technical difficulties, it is probable that Suetonius is right and that in any case it was Caesar’s intention that Octavian should be his adopted son as well as his heir. Cf. G. E. F. Chilver, JRS, 1954, 126 ff. On Octavian’s rise see A. Alföldi, Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht (1976). [p. 133]
4 THE PROSCRIPTIONS. Some exciting stories are told by Appian (BC, iv, 11–30). An inscription, the so-called Laudatio Turiae, commemorates the devotion of a wife to her husband (proscribed now or exiled earlier) and exposes the cruelty of Lepidus. There is an edition by M. Durry (Éloge d’une matrone romaine, 1950) and a translation in Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. i, 484 ff. [p. 135]
5 CICERO. Biographies include G. Boissier, Cicero and his Friends (1897); J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Cicero and the Fall of the Roman Republic (1894); E. G. Sihler, Cicero of Arpinum (1914); T. Petersson, Cicero (1920); H. J. Haskell, This was Cicero (1942); R. E. Smith, Cicero the Statesman (1966); and, in German, M. Gelzer, Cicero (1969). Cicero, edited by T. A. Dorey (1965), contains chapters by seven scholars on aspects of Cicero’s life and work. R. J. Rowland in ‘A Survey of selected Ciceronian Bibliography, 1953–1965’ (Cl. W., 1965, 51 ff., 101 ff.) provides a useful account and a wider one than the title might suggest. F. R. Cowell, Cicero and the Roman Republic (1948; Pelican ed. 1956) is a general survey of the later Republic rather than a strict biography of Cicero. J. Carcopino, Cicero; the Secrets of his Correspondence (1951), is an unsuccessful attempt to undermine the historical value of Cicero’s letters and to blacken Cicero’s character. Two further biographies of Cicero appeared in 1971: Cicero by D. R. Shackleton Bailey (with emphasis on the later part of his life, from which so many of his letters survive) and Cicero by D. L. Stockton. E. Rawson’s Cicero (1975) is a more balanced portrait of the whole man. His early career until 63 B.C. is handled by T. W. Mitchell, Cicero, the Ascending Years (1979) and his whole life is sketched by W. K. Lacey, Cicero and the End of the Roman Republic (1978). On Cicero’s portraits see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits (1978), 28 ff. [p. 135]
6 CICERO’S POLITICAL THEORIES. Much has been written on the monarchical emphasis in Cicero’s later writings: see, e.g. W. W. How, JRS, 1930, 24 ff.; E. Lepore, Il princeps Ciceroniano (1954). For an interpretation of his philosophic works see H. A. K. Hunt, The Humanism of Cicero (1954). See also S. E. Smethurst, ‘Cicero’s Rhetorical and Philosophical Works, 1957–1963’, Cl. W., 1964, 36 ff. [p. 135]
6a BRUTUS. See M. L. Clarke, The Noblest Roman, Marcus Brutus and his Reputation (1981). On his relations with Cassius see W. Huss, Würzburger Jahrb. für die Alterturnswiss, 1977, 115 ff. [p. 137]
6b THE PERUSINE WAR. See E. Gabba, Harvard Stud. Class. Phil., 1971, 139 ff. for an analysis of the activities of Octavian and Antony until 36 B.C. On the Perusine war see P. Wallmann, Talanta, 1974, 58 ff. [p. 138]
7 THE CHILD OF VIRGIL’S FOURTH ECLOGUE. This subject has caused much speculation. For the view in the text (a future son of Antony and Octavia) see W. W. Tarn, JRS, 1932, 135 ff. Less likely ‘candidates’ are a son of Antony and Cleopatra; Asinius Gallus, son of Asinius Pollio, or his younger brother allegedly called Asinius Saloninus (whose existence has been questioned by R. Syme, Cl. Qu., 1937, 39). [p. 138]
8 SEXTUS POMPEIUS. See M. Hadas, Sextus Pompey (1930). [p. 138]
9 AGRIPPA. See M. Reinhold, Marcus Agrippa (1933). Impressive remains survive of the tunnels constructed by Agrippa’s architect and engineer, L. Cocceius Auctus (Strabo, 5. 4. 5): the ‘Grotta di Cocceio’ connected Lake Avernus with Cumae, running under Monte Grillo. Another long gallery, under the hill of Cumae itself, belongs to this system; until the real Grotto of the Sibyl was discovered in 1932, it was confused with this other work (see A. Maiuri, I Campi Flegrei, 1949, pp. 127 ff.). These tunnels were of course only supplementary to the vast main work of creating Portus Iulius, a major feat of engineering. See further R. F. Paget, JRS, 1968, 163 ff. (with plan). [p. 138]
10 RENEWAL OF THE TRIUMVIRATE. The sources are contradictory, e.g. Appian even contradicts himself (BC, v, 95 and Illyr. 28) as to whether it was legally sanctioned. See Rice Holmes, Architect Rom. Emp. i. 231 ff.; CAH, X, 59 and 902. [p. 138]
11 SELEUCUS OF RHOSUS. It was probably for services in this campaign that one of Octavian’s ad
mirals, a certain Seleucus of Rhosus in Syria, was rewarded with a grant of Roman citizenship and other privileges (immunity from taxation, etc.). Letters and an edict of Octavian to Rhosus, between 41 and 30 B.C., record this; see Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, n. 301, Sherk, Rom. Documents from Greek East (1969), n. 58 and translation in Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. i, 389 ff. [p. 140]
12 OCTAVIAN’S SACROSANCTITAS. So Dio Cassius, 49, 15, 5, contra Appian BC, v, 132. See H. Last, Rendiconti, Ist. Lombardo, 1951, 95 ff. On Octavian’s constitutional hopes in 36 see R. E. A. Palmer, Athenaeum, 1978, 315 ff. [p. 140]
13 TERRAMARIQUE. On this formula, A. Momigliano, JRS, 1942, 63. [p. 140]
14 OCTAVIAN’S ILLYRIAN CAMPAIGN. See R. Syme, JRS, 1933, 66 on E. Swoboda, Octavian und Illyricum. N. Vulic (JRS, 1934, 163 ff.) argues for wide conquests. See also W. Schmitthenner, Historia, 1958, 189 ff., who considers it in relation to Octavian’s struggle for power, and J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (1969), 46 ff. Syme’s article is reprinted, with addendum, in Danubian Papers (1971), 135 ff. [p. 140]
15 Q. LABIENUS. He even issued a silver coinage, depicting his portrait and, on the reverse, a Parthian horse; the legend ran ‘Q. Labienus Parthicus Imperator’ (see E. A. Sydenham, CRR, n. 1356–7; Crawford, RRC, n. 524). [p. 141]
16 C. SOSIUS. He commemorated his victory with a coinage depicting Antony’s portrait and a military trophy at the base of which sat two captives, Judaea and Antigonus (Sydenham, CRR, n. 1272). [p. 141]
17 THE MARRIAGE OF ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA. The date is much disputed. W. W. Tarn (CAH, X, 66 ff.) and others place it in 37: a new supplementary dating era started in Alexandria in 37, which may denote the regnal years of the joint reign of Cleopatra and Antony. Other possible (though less likely?) explanations of this double dating, which appears on some coins and papyri, refer it to the territorial expansion of Egypt in 37 or to Cleopatra and Ptolemy Caesar. Other historians place Antony’s marriage later, after he had formally divorced Octavia. See Rice Holmes, Architect Rom. Emp. i, 227 ff. On Antony see R. F. Rossi, Marco Antonio nelle lotta politica della tarda repubblica romana (1959) and H. Buchheim, Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M. Antonius (1961). H. Bengston, Marcus Antonius, Triumvir und Herrscher des Orients (1977) adds little fresh. On Antony’s portraits see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits (1978), 41 ff. [p. 142]
18 ALEXANDER HELIOS. In choosing this name for his son, Antony may have been thinking that the Persians, the predecessors of the Parthians, had been conquered by Alexander the Great, or possibly he hoped that the name would suggest the Sun-child who would, as men hoped, inaugurate a Golden Age. See W. W. Tarn, JRS, 1932, 135 ff. [p. 142]
19 CLEOPATRA’S AIMS. Such is the view brilliantly expounded by W. W. Tarn, CAH, X, 76 ff. (cf. JRS, 1932, 135 ff.). Others (cf. R. Syme, Rom. Rev. 274 f.) believe her aims to be more moderate and that many of her alleged intentions are the result of Octavian’s propaganda. For the oracle (which may, but does not certainly, refer to Cleopatra) see J. Geffcken, Oracula Sibyllina, book iii, 350 ff. These Oracles, written in Greek hexameters, were put together over a long period of time (300 B.C.–A.D. 500) and are Greek, Jewish and Christian; book iii is mainly Jewish. [p. 142]
20 CAESARION. That Julius Caesar was in fact the father of Caesarion cannot be established beyond all doubt: some passages in the ancient authorities are inconclusive, although others (e.g. Plut. Caes. 49, 10) are definite in asserting it. J. Carcopino (Ann. École Haut. Étud. Gand, 1, 1937) has argued against Caesar’s paternity and dates the birth of Caesarion to 44 rather than (as Plutarch) to 47. But see K. W. Meiklejohn, JRS, 1934, 191 ff. and H. Volkmann, Cleopatra (1958), 74 ff. J. P. V. D. Balsdon (Historia, 1958, 86 ff., CR, 1960, 69 ff.) argues that the child was born in 44 a month or two after Caesar’s death and that thereupon Cleopatra invented the false story that Caesar was the father. H. Heinen (Historia, 1969, 181 ff.) argues for paternity of Caesar rather than Antony. [p. 143]
21 CLEOPATRA, QUEEN OF KINGS. Antony issued coins which showed Cleopatra’s portrait and named her ‘Queen of Kings and of her sons who are kings’: the other side depicted Antony and the legend ‘Armenia devicta’ (Sydenham, CRR, n. 1210–11; Crawford, RRC, n. 543). Artistically these coins are poor and do not flatter the queen, but none of the other coins with her portrait (see J. M. C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits (1978), 86 ff.) suggests that she was particularly beautiful. On Cleopatra see also H. Volkmann, Cleopatra (Engl. trans., 1958). Two more biographies of Cleopatra have appeared: Cleopatra (1972) by M. Grant, and Cleopatra (1970), a somewhat more romantic account by Jack Lindsay. [p. 143]
22 THE END OF THE TRIUMVIRATE. For the view that it terminated at the end of 33 (cf. Augustus, Res Gest. 7: ‘triumvirum rei publicae constituendae fui per continuos annos decem’) and a discussion of other views, see Rice Holmes Architect Rom. Emp. I, 231 ff.; for more recent views see G. E. F. Chilver, Historia, 1950, 410 ff. On Octavian’s status in 32 see H. W. Benario, Chiron, 1975, 301 ff., and on the crisis in Rome at the beginning of 32 see E. H. Gray, Proc. Afr. Cl. Ass., 1975, 15 ff. [p. 143]
23 THE CONIURATIO. On its importance see R. Syme, Rom. Rev., 284 ff., who also emphasizes its influence on the unification of Italy, tota Italia. After tota Italia (according to Res Gestae, 25, 2) ‘the Gallic and Spanish provinces, Africa, Sicily and Sardinia swore the same oath of allegiance’. After Antony’s defeat in the east, the eastern regions appear to have followed suit; later, on the accession of a new emperor, a similar oath was taken everywhere (e.g. by Cyprus to Tiberius: see ch. XIII, n. 16 below). The nature of the oath is exemplified in that taken by resident Romans and natives at Gangra in Paphlagonia in 3 B.C. soon after its incorporation in the province of Galatia: see Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, 315, and for translation and discussion of this topic see P. A. Brunt and J. M. Moore, Res Gestae (1967), 67 f. The oath was personal and extra-constitutional, and did not confer any legal power on Octavian. For fragments of an inscription containing an oath of allegiance to Augustus taken in Samos, see P. Herrmann, Athen. Mitteil., 75 (1960), 71 f.
On Octavian’s followers see Syme, op. cit., 292 f. and on Antony’s pp. 266 ff. On the unattached votes in the Senate in 32 see P. Wallmann, Historia, 1976, 305 ff. [p. 143]
24 ACTIUM. For the view that Antony intended a decisive action and was let down by misunderstanding or treachery among his men see W. W. Tarn, JRS, 1931, 173 ff.; 1938, 165 ff. For the ‘escape’ theory see J. Kromayer, Hermes, 1933, 361 ff.; G. W. Richardson, JRS, 1937, 153 ff. After the battle Octavian founded a ‘city of victory’, Nicopolis, nearby, where he concentrated many Acarnanians and Epirots. The services of Seleucus of Rhosus, who served as his admiral, are recorded in a letter of Octavian to Rhosus (see above, n. 11). For an edict of Octavian (probably 31 B.C.), granting privileges to veterans, see Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, n. 302 and translation in Lewis and Reinhold, Rn. Civ. i, p. 392. On Actium see also E. Wistrand, Horace’s Ninth Epode (1958); M. L. Paladini, A proposito della tradizione poetica sulla battaglia di Azio (1958); J. M. Carter, The Battle of Actium (1970), [p. 145]
25 CLEOPATRA’S DEATH. On the chronology of her last days see T. C. Skeat, JRS, 1953, 98 ff. On W. Spiegelberg’s view that she used an asp because, as the divine minister of the Sun-god, it defied its victim, see J. G. Griffiths, Journ. Egypt. Arch. 1961, 113 ff. B. Baldwin, Journ. Egypt. Arch., 1964, 181 f., denies the view of Griffiths (op. cit.) that Cleopatra used two serpents (the double uraeaus). On Antony’s will see J. Crook, JRS, 1957, 36 ff. [p. 145]
CHAPTER IX
1 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. For a detailed survey see Tenney Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, vol. I (1933), chs. iv and v. See also K. D. White, Roman Farming (1970); H. J. Loane, Industry and Commerce in the City of Rome, 50 BC–200 A.D. (1938); A. Burford, Craftsmen in Greek and Roman Society (1972); L. Schatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (1975), discusses the wealth of individual senators in the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C. In The Ancient Economy (1973), M. I. Finley discusses various concepts and aspects of ancie
nt economic life. He regards ancient economic thought and life as primitive and alien to many of the modern economic categories which are sometimes applied to it: the structure of ancient society was hostile to industry and commerce, while agriculture remained underdeveloped. For a criticism of this standpoint see M. Frederiksen, JRS, 1975, 164 ff. [p. 146]
2 POPULATION OF ITALY. The high figure of nearly 14 million, which included 4 million slaves, was the estimate of T. Frank (op. cit. p. 266). P. A. Brunt, who in Italian Manpower, 225 BC–A.D. 14 (1971) has subjected the evidence to fresh and vigorous examination, reverts to figures of the more sober order reached much earlier by K. J. Beloch: he concludes that by 28 B.C. there were some 5–6 million Roman citizens (men, women, and children over the age of one) and that not many more than 4 million were domiciled in Italy; the total population of Italy, including infants, free foreigners and slaves, was perhaps in excess of 7 million. He believes that the number of the free population in Italy had not increased in the two hundred years before Augustus. [p. 147]
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 Page 60