INTRODUCTION Prodigies Were a Standard Feature of Roman
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INTRODUCTION Apud Actium descendenti in aciem asellus cum asinario occurrit: homini Eutychus, bestiae Nicon erat nomen; utrisque simulacrum aeneum victor posuit in templo, in quod castrorum suorum locum vertit. At Actium as he was going down to begin the battle, he met an ass with his driver, the man having the name Eutychos [Lucky] and the beast that of Nikon [Victor]; and aft er the victory he set up bronze images of the two in the sacred enclosure into which he converted the site of his camp (Suet. Aug. 96.2).1 Prodigies were a standard feature of Roman historiography and the triumviral period was no exception. Th e setting of this story is the hill of Michalitsi just before the battle of Actium on 2nd September 31 BC, north of the future Nicopolis, where the statue of the donkey and the driver was erected on Octavian’s Victory Monument (Plut. Ant. 65.3). Together with rams from captured enemy ships the statue showed that Octavian was helped by the gods in his victory at Actium.2 Th e luck might refer to Apollo, who also had a statue on the monument, as he was the god that helped Octavian to victory. Octavian clearly thought it was important to spread the story of divine intervention at Actium. Th e legend of Actium was born. Historical analysis and the ideology of the regime of Octavian/ Augustus, not narrative, is the subject of this book. A re-evaluation of Augustus’ rise to power in 43–27 BC, fi rst as triumvir, and then as sole ruler, will be central to the analysis, focusing particularly on the part played by ideological claims. Th e various measures undertaken by the victor of Actium to create, and legitimate a new system of government in Rome will be examined, and in particular the ways in which the Caesarian regime represented and commemorated the battle of Actium and turned it to Octavian/Augustus’s purpose. Th e battle of Actium was relatively more important than the capture of Alexandria in the ideology of the regime, but at the same time the two battles must be understood together, as part of the accomplishment 1 Trans. Rolfe 1951. Suet. Aug. 96 gives a list of Augustus’ omens before battle. 2 See Pelling 1988, 265, 281; Lorsch 2000 on the propaganda of omens. 2 introduction of the assignment of the triumvirate (restoring the res publica to order and ending the civil war). According to the regime, Apollo had a major role to play in this development, helping Octavian to win the battle of Actium. Th ere are many possible themes that could have been exploited, looking at contemporary ideological developments, but the nexus of Actium, Apollo, civil war and peace all centre round the triumvirate and triumviral assignment. What follows is the story of the Victor and how he “wrote” the history of the period. Th is does not turn this analysis into uncritical praise for Augustus, but the purpose is to explain the ideology of the regime, instead of proving it wrong and deceptive. Th is book is not however, and does not claim to be, an exhaustive treatment of Augustan ideology, but hopes to make its contribution to discussions of the triumvirate and the Augustan Principate. Th ere is a generally held consensus amongst scholars that Actium was presented as a foreign war and that Octavian/Augustus tried to conceal that it was in fact a civil war. Th is book will refl ect on the issue and challenge this consensus. Furthermore, there is a tendency to look at this period in a deterministic manner. But most likely this was the civil war that should not have been; in 36 BC the civil wars were ended aft er the victory over Sextus Pompeius, and the powers of the triumvirate were to be laid down. But in the end the foreign war against Cleopatra had to be fought. In this war Antonius decided to make war on his own country and thus a foreign war turned into a civil war, or at least these were the events as claimed by Octavian/Augustus. Th is blurring of foreign and civil war was the result of the war of words, the build-up to the war itself; the fi ght to position oneself as anything but the aggressor. Th e pre-Actium period, focusing on pax, civil war and Apollo, from the death of Caesar to Naulochus in 36 BC, stressing their ideologi- cal justifi cation as seen from Octavian/Augustus’s point of view, will be discussed in chapter 1. It will be argued that the triumvirate was the cornerstone of this justifi cation and that fi xed-term tasks, including the constituting of the res publica, became the standard way to justify the triumvirate and later the monarchy. Chapter 2 focuses on the approach to war against Antonius and Cleopatra; how it was represented and how Octavian justifi ed his position within the state aft er the second term of the triumviral period had lapsed at the end of 33 BC. It will be stressed that the accomplishment of the triumviral assignment was the central justifi cation once more. As mentioned, the war was declared .