The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B. C.

The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B. C.
Author(s): Kenneth Scott

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, Vol. 11 (1933), pp. 7-49
Published by: University of Michigan Press for the American Academy in Rome
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4238573 .
Accessed: 24/12/2012 08:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Academy in Rome and University of Michigan Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE POLITICAL PROPAGANDA OF 44-30B. C.1
KENNETH SCOTT.
in 44 B. C. to the suicideof Antonyin Alexandria,

somefourteenyearslater,was
filled with almost constantwarfareattended by nearly every trick of political propaganda.
Any historyof the periodjust mentionedmustperforcedealalmostconstantlywith the charges,
counter-charges,manifestos,pamphlets,lampoons,and the activitiesof secret emissarieson
both sides, in short with the propagandaby which Octavian, Antony, Lucius Antonius
andFulvia,andSextusPompeytriedto win the supportof the publicor the troops. It
seems, however,that a study of our sourceswill give us a clearerinsight into these matters
than will be found in the general histories touching on the period.
Active propagandain an attempt to win public opinion was surely most pronounced
at various stages in the rise of Octavianto political ascendancy,and these stages may be
roughlyclassifiedas follows:
(1) The period of ill-will between Octavian and Antony, which lasted from about
the middle of May in 44, when the former entered Rome to claim his inheritance,to the
formationof the triumviratein November of 43 B. C., a period of bitter hostility, broken
only by a few months of outwardreconciliationduring the summerof 44.
(2) The Perusine War of 41-40, with its aftermathof suspicionsbetween Octavian
and Antonywhich were allayedat the peace of Brundisiumin the earlyAutumnof 40 B. C.
(3) The war with Sextus Pompeius from early in 38 to the third of September,
36 B. C.
(4) The final strugglebetweenthe two remainingtriumvirs(after Lepidus'deposition
in 36) from 32 to the surrenderof Alexandriaon the first of August, 30 B. C.
Octavian upon his arrivalat Rome in the year 44 B. C. found that he was blocked
at every turn by Mark Antony, who tried to prevent the young man's formal acceptance of
1Theauthordesiresto expresshisthanksto Professors kindnessin readingthis articlein manuscript
and for
A. C. Johnson,M. B. Ogle,and R. S. Rogers,for their their helpfulsuggestions.

8 KENNETH
KENNETHSCOTT
SCOTT
the inheritanceand adoption stipulated in Julius Caesar'swill, seized the money of the
deceaseddictatorandopposedOctavian's candidacy forthetribunate. They both, however,
in spite of their secrethostility,did their best to concealtheir quarrelfrom the public.
In factthetroopsforceda shortreconciliation betweenthetwo, but their interestscontinued
to clash, and on October5th or 6th Antonyprecipitatedmattersby accusingOctavian
of suborning men to murder him. NICOLAUS an acquaintance of Augustus,
OFDAMASCUS,
probably used the emperor'sMemoirsas the principalbasis of chapters 1 to 18 and 28
to 31 of his Life of Augustus,2 and his account of the alleged plot is the most detailed,
though it shows a strong bias in favor of Octavian. Antony, accordingto Nicolaus,3
arrestedsome soldiers,makingit publiclyknownthat they had been sent to kill him, while he
hinted that Octavianwas behind the plot. Antony'sfriendshastenedto the consul'shome,
and armedtroops were summoned. Octavian,learninglate that afternoonof the attempted
assassinationand attributingthe plot to the liberators,sent a message offering himself to
standguardat Antony'sbedside. The latter,however,refusedto admitthe man and rudely
sent him away, but not before the messenger had overheardAntony's guards state that
Octavianwas the instigatorof the plot, a remarkwhich he duly reportedto his master.
Octavianwas thunderstruckat the news, but saw that these proceedingswere aimed against
himself. Thereupon he consulted his friends and Philippus, his stepfather,and Atia, his
mother, who advised him to withdrawfrom Rome until the affair had been investigated.
But he rejectedthis plan lest he thus incriminatehimself.
On the next day, therefore,Octavianwent abouthis affairsas usual, but Antony, calling
a council of friends, informed them that he was aware of earlier plotting on the part of
Octavianand that on this occasionone of the assassins,inducedby bribes, had revealedthe
conspiracyand the man'saccompliceshad been seized. The members of Antony's council
asked to see the captives,but Antony said it was not necessarysince they had confessed,
and changed the subject. Without proof the group was unwilling to take any action, so
Antony dismissedthem and two or three days later departedfor Brundisium. His friends
dropped the question of the plot, and none of the conspirators,if such there were, was
ever seen. But in any case Octavian, displaying genuine or pretendedindignation,now
had a good excuse to seek a means to protect himself against what he claimed were his
rival'streacherousplots. He lost no time in turning the whole matter to his own advan-
tage by appealingto the veteransat Calatiaby "telling them how unjustly his father had
perished and he himself had been plotted against".4 So began the series of similar
charges directed by Antony and Octavian against one another. V.T.-FIUS,patently pro-
in takingthe side of Octavian,
Caesarianthroughouthis history,concurswith NICOLAUS
1 3 Blo
DIO, xlv, 11, 1. KataaQoo, 30-31.
2
C. M. HALL'S edition,SmithCollegeClassicalStudies, 4 Ibid., 31.
no. IV, preface.

THE POLITICALPROPAGANDA
OF 44-30 B. C. 9
writing:"Soon Antonywlckedlybeganto pretendthathe hadbeen assailedby Octavian's

plots, and in this Antony's deception was revealed to his discredit."}
The accountof APPIAN 2 showsthe gravityof Antony'schargeandthe varyingopinions
of the public. In generalhis storyagreeswith the narrativeof NICOLAUS.He adds the
suggestionthat Antonymay havediscoveredagentsof Octavianin his campand madeof
the plot to thwarthis plansa plot againsthis life. He also points out that some people
of penetrationrealizedthat it was to Octavian'sadvantagethat Antonyshouldlive to be
a checkmate to the partyof BrutusandCassius. Still,most people,in view of the shame-
ful treatmentwhich Octavianhad receivedat Antony'shands,gavecredenceto the accusation
and resenteda conspiracyagainstthe consul'slife.
BeyondquestionOctavianwas quickto graspthe seriousnessof the situation,for, accord-
ing to APPIAN,he protestedhis innocenceon oathin publicand privateand railedagainst
Antonyand his doorkeepers when he could not obtainadmissionto take him to task to
his face. But Octavian,youngas he was,waspossessedof no littlepoliticalastuteness,for
with deep emotion he informedthe peoplethat if he perishedhis deathwould be the
result of Antony'sintrigues. The multitudewas impressedand underwenta profound
change of opinion, although some people, who had doubtless had their fill of propaganda
in the previous years of strife, felt that both sides were only shammingin order to carry
out some plot againsttheir respectiveenemies. And others thoughtAntonywas only
seekingto obtaina largebody-guardand causeOctavianto lose the goodwillof the veterans.
PLUTARCH venturesno opinionon the truthor falsityof Antony'saccusation,but he
does give one additionalpiece of information: Antony heard a report that Octavianwas
plottingagainsthima fewdaysafterdreaming
that his right handwas struckby a thunder-
3
bolt. It does not seem improbablethat the omen of the thunderboltwas a story set
afoot by Antonyor his sympathizersto impressthe superstitiouswith a divine indication
of Octavian'sallegedplot.
Other ancient writers,however,were apparentlyconvincedof Octavian'sguilt; among
them is SENECA, who writes that the young man of eighteen had alreadythrough his plots
attacked the consul, Mark Antony.4 But certainlythe most damagingevidence against
Octavianis the attitude of CICERO, who seems to have had no doubt about his guilt. In
a letter written to Cornificius,CICERO says that if he did not know that reportsof happen-
ings in the city were being forwardedto his friend he would himself give a full account
of the attempt made by Octavian. CICERO adds that most people thought Antony had in-
vented the charge to have an excuse to seize the young man's property,but that men of
penetrationand patriotsbelievedin and approvedthe allegedattemptat assassination.Then
he expresseshigh hopes of the young Octavian,explainsthat populardetestationprevented
1ii, 60, 3. 3
Ant., xvi, 3-4.
2
iii, 39; referencesto APPIAN
are to his Civil Wars. 4 De Clementia,i, 9, 1.

10 KENNETH
KENNETH SCOTT
SCOTT
Antony from making the affair public, and records Antony's departureto Brundisiumto
win by bribery the four Macedonianlegions. I
A little after the date of this letter Antony calleda meeting of the Senate for the 24th
of Novemberand, althoughhe was himselfabsentfromthe meeting,he issuedan edict which
concluded as follows: " If anyone has not been present, all men will be able to consider
that he was the instigatorof an attemptto destroyme, and the author of the most abandoned
counsels." After citing these words of Antony's edict, CICERO replied thus : What are
'abandoned counsels'? Are they those which relate to recoveringthe freedom of the
Romanpeople? As to these counsels I confessthat I am and have been Caesar'sinstigator
and advocate. Yet he had no need of anyone's advice, but, as the saying goes, I spurred
a willing (currentem)horse. Of your destruction,indeed, what good man would not be
the instigator,since in that consistedthe safetyand life of all good citizens and the freedom
and dignity of the Roman people? "2 To be sure it is quite possible that CICEROis too
confident in believing that Octavian really acted upon any hints or frank suggestions
which he may have made to him.
SUETONIUS appearsto believe in the plot: And so, upon the instigationof certain
people, he hired assassins to murder Antony, and, when the plot was detected, since he
in turn feared danger,by giving as a bounty all the money he could, he musteredveterans
for his own assistanceand for that of the State. " 3 The whole question was never cleared
up in antiquityand seems incapableof solution. It is true that the assassinationof Antony
probably would have united the Pompeians against Octavian,but, as RICEHOLMES has
pointed out, 4 there is the possibility that Octavianfelt he might with the support of the
Caesariansbe a match for the Senate and the liberators. At any rate the incident brings
out clearly the necessity felt by both Antony and Octavianfor winning the favor of the
public. Each tried his best to discredit his rival, and the whole affair precipitatedthe
struggle for the control of the legions and of Italy.
On the 9th of October, Antony departedfor Brundisiumto receive the legions from
Macedonia. Octavian, it would seem, had emissaries at Brundisiumwho reportedto
him that the army there and the colonized soldiers " were in a rage at Antony because he
neglected the murder of Caesar, and declaredthat if they could they would come to his
[Octavian's]aid. "5 Octavianat once sent men into the cities colonized by his father to
report his wrongs and to discover the feelings in each city. And he likewise despatched
to the camp of Antony certainpeople who, as traders, were to mingle with those who were
wers,
especiallybold, and covertlyto scatterpamphletsamong the crowd.6 NICOLAUS gives the
'Ad Fam.,xii, 23, 2. of Augustus.

2Phil., iii, 8, 19. 4 TheArchitect oftheRoman i, 1928,p. 27,n. 3.
Empire,
5
3 Aug.,x, 3; his sourcemaywellhavebeenthe letters APPIAN, iii, 40.
6
of MarkAntonywhichhe used frequentlyin his Life ID.,iii, 31.

THE
THE POLITICAL OF
POLITICALPROPAGANDA
PROPAGANDA 44-30B.
OF 44-30 B. C.
C. 11
11
"
followingaccountof Octavian'sinstructionsto his agents: And of those who followed
him he sent to Brundisiumothers who excelled in foresight and daring, to persuade,if
to embracehis causeand
they could,the troopswho had just arrivedfromMacedonia
to be mindfulof his father,Caesar,and in no wise to betrayhis son. And he told his
agents,if theycouldnotdo thisopenly,to writeout these mattersand distributethe notices
everywhere,that the men might pick them up and readthem. And that they might
takehis sidehe entreatedthe restbesidesby fillingthemwithhopesof theirrewardswhen
he should hold power. " 1
As soon as Antonycameto Brundisiumhe found that Octavian'sspies had been at work.
He found fault with his soldiersfor not arrestingand handingover to him the agents of the
" rash boy " who had been trying to stir up discordand threatenedto find the emissaries
himself.2 Thereupon he put to death some of the more seditious of his soldiers and
therebygave Octavian'sagentsjust the chance they desired. They hastened to circularize
the camp with a flood of pamphletswhich drew attentionto the cruelty and stinginess of
Antony, at the same time recallingthe memory of Julius Caesarand inviting the soldiers
to test the liberality of Octavianby joining his side. Antony was alarmedat this move
and strove, now by rewardsand now by threats, to lay hands on the propagandists,and
when he had no success he becamefurious, since he thought that they were concealedby
his own men. When, however, he received tidings of Octavian'sactivity in Rome and
among the colonies of veterans, he was frightenedand expressedhis regrets to the army
for the punishmentwhich he had meted out in the interests of discipline. At the same
time he protestedthat he had displayedneither cruelty nor stinginess.3
While Antony was thus employed at Brundisium,Octavianhad succeeded in raising
an army of veterans,the evocati,by the promiseof 500 denariito each man and, entering
Rome, he there addressed the people, whom he remindedof the services of his father
Julius. At the same time he made a lengthy, though moderate,defence of himself and
also preferredchargesagainsthis rival.4 Very likely his defence consisted in the main of
a refutationof the charge that he had attemptedthe assassinationof the consul.
When Antony learned of Octavian's doings among the veterans and in Rome, he
tried, as we have seen, to makehis peacewith his own soldiers. Next he hastened to Rome
and called a meeting of the Senate for November 24th, while in the meantime he issued
edicts defamingthe characterof his rival. We happento know somethingof their contents,
thanksto SUETONIUS, who says that Antony tauntedOctavianwith havingwon adoption by
Caesar through unnaturalrelationswith him.5
1 Op.cit.,31; DIO,xlv, 12,2, saysthatOctavian

sent 3 ID., iii, 44.
certain agents with money to reach Brundisiumbefore 4 DIO, xlv, 12, 4-5,
Antony and secure his soldiers. 5 Aug., lxviii.
2APPIAN, iii, 43.

12
12 KENNETHSCOTT
KENNETH SCOTT
That the statement of SUETONIUSbelongs to this occasion we know from CICERO'S

third Philippic, delivered on the 20th of December, 44, in which he takes up the accu-
sationsmadeby Antony:" Buthowinsultinghe is in his edicts,howuncouth,howigno-
rant! In the firstplacehe hasheapeduponCaesarabusedrawnfromthe recollection of
his own lewdnessand debauchery.For who is morechastethanthis youngman,who
moremodest? Whatmoreillustriousexampleof the purityof formertimeshavewe
in youth? Moreover, whois moreunchaste thanthemanwho slandershim?"1 Again,
in his thirteenth
Philippic,
CICEROrefersto the edictsas follows: " Forit wastheincred-
ible and divine worth of Caesarwhich checkedthe cruel and frenziedattacksof a brigand.
At thattimethatbrigand
in hismadness
thoughtthatby his edictshe wasinjuring
Caesar,
not knowingthat whateverfalsehoodshe utteredagainsta most innocentyoung manwerein
truthrecoilinguponthe memoryof hisownboyhood."2 It wouldnotbe safeto puttoo
much confidencein CICERO'Sdefenseof Octavian'scharacter,
for he washardlyan intimate,
or in a positionto knowaboutthe young man'sprivatelife. NICOLAUS of Damascus,to
be sure, eulogizesOctavianfor the modestywhich " he displayed most conspicuouslyin his
hiswholelife." 3 Unfortunately,
actionsthroughout as we shallsee later(p. 40),Augustus
does not seem to have deservedsuch praise,and it is likely that there is an elementof prob-
abilityin Antony'scharge,for I thinkthatthe studyof allAntony's
accusations
willshow
that he was shrewd enough as a rule not to manufacturefalsehoodsout of whole cloth.4
To this sameperiodwe must assignthe sneersof Antonyat Octavian'sancestry, reported
in SUETONIUSas follows:
Aug.,ii, 3: "MarkAntonyupbraidshimabouthis great-grandfather,
callinghima freedman,
a rope-makerfromthe districtof Thurii,andabouta grandfatherwho was,he claimed,a money
changer.NorhaveI foundanything furtherconcerning
thepaternal ancestors
ofAugustus."
Aug.,iii, 1 : " C. Octaviuswasfromthe beginningof his life a manof greatwealth
and reputation,so that I am indeed surprisedthat he is reportedby some to have been
a money-changer andevento havebeenamongthosewhodistributed bribesandperformed
othertasksin the Campus. For rearedas he was amidstaffluencehe both readily
obtainedand splendidlydischarged publicoffices."
Aug.,vii, 1 : " But he also is oftencalledThurinusin the lettersof MarkAntony
by way of insult, and he himself merely replies that he is astonishedthat his former name
is held up to him as a reproach."
Aug., iv, 2: " But Antony likewise, looking down upon even the maternalstock of Au-
gustus, upbraidedhim with the chargethat his great-grandfather had been of Africanbirth
16, 15. politicsthen,as today,to defamethe character

of one's
2
9, 19. opponent, for we find Calenus charging Cicero with
3 Op. cit., 13.
effeminacy,licentiousnessand impurity. DIO, xlvi, 18,
4 It was, however,evidently the customarything in 3-6.

OF 44-30 B. C. 13
and had conductednow a perfumeryshop and now a bakeryat Aricia. CassiusParmensis,

indeed,in a certainletterthus twits Augustusfor being the grandsonnot only of a bakerbut
also of a money-changer:' Your mother'smealcamefroma most vulgarbakeryin Aricia; this
was fashionedby a money-changerof Nerulumwith handsdiscoloredfrom changingcoins. '
The reference to the meanness of Octavian'sbirth on the maternalside at least, if
not also on the paternalside, is to be assignedto the edicts issued by Antonyduring
this period. CICEROspeaks of them thus: He reproacheswith meanness of family the
son of C. Caesar,whose naturalfatherwould even have been made consul, if life had lasted.
'
' A mother from Aricia - you might think he was speakingof a motherfrom Tralles or
Ephesus. "1 He then writes with feeling of the contemptshown for those who came from
the Italianmunicipalitiesand exaltsthe antiquityof Aricia,the good reputeof its citizensand
its contributionsto Rome. Then he turns a torrentof abuse on Antony,askinghim why he
does not approveof a wife from Aricia,yet approvesof one fromTusculum. He ridicules
Antony on accountof his wife's ancestryand becausehis father'swife, Numitoria,came from
Fregellae,and finallyleaves the whole question to Lucius Philippus,whose wife came from
Aricia, and Caius Marcellus,who marriedthe daughterof a woman of Aricia.2
These accusations,then, against Octavian'sancestryare as follows:
A. On the paternalside:
1. His great-grandfatherwas a freedmanand rope-makerfrom the district of Thurii
(authority,MarcusAntonius),and Octavianwas often called Thurinus in the letters
(in epistulis)of Marcus Antonius.
2. His paternalgrandfatherwas calleda money-changer(authority,MarcusAntonius).
3. His fatherwas called a money-changer(authority,nonnulliand a verse,perhapsby
CASSIUSPARMENSIS),and was said to have been inter divisores operasquecampestres
(authority,nonnulli).
B. On the maternalside:
1. His great-grandfatherwas of Africanbirthand kept first,a perfumeryshop, and then
a bake-shop at Aricia (authority,Marcus Antonius and a certainepistula of CASSIUS
PARMENSIS), and Octavian'swife came from Aricia (authority,MarcusAntonius).
KALINKA suggestswith greatplausibilitythat Octavian'sgrandmotheron his father'sside
may have been the daughterof a freedmanwho was a rope-makerfromthe districtof Thurii.3
1Phil., iii, 6, 15. ComptesRendusde l'Academiedes Inscriptionset Belles-

2
Ibid.,iii, 6, 15-17. CICEROis also reproachedon Lettres,1919, 134-142: the name would seem to have
the groundof baseoriginby Calenus;Dio, xlvi, 4, 2-3. been associatedwith the city of Thuriumin Lucania.
3 E. KALINKA, Die vonSuetonberichteten
Schmahungen DEONNA,La Legende d'Octave-Auguste, in Revuede His-
in
auf Oktavian, Sitzungsberichte derAkad.der Wiss.in toiredesReligions,
83, 1921,p. 35, n. 6 wouldconnectthe
Wien,phil.-hist. KI., 197,1922,42. Cf. SUETONIUS,
Aug., namein somefashionwith the EtruscanMercury,but
vii, 1 : "As aninfanthe wasgiventhe surname Thurinus I canseenothingconvincingin hissuggestion.Cf.ScoTr,
in memoryof the home of his ancestors... ;" and A. Mercur-Augustus und Horaz C. I, 2, in Hermes,Ixiii,
BLANCHET, Thurinus, surnomde l'empereur Auguste,in 1928,26.

'4
14 KENNETHSCOTT
KENNETHSCOTT
I am inclined to think that the epithet argentariuswas appliedby MarcusAntonius to

thefatherof Octavian,andthatit wasintendedas a sneerat thevery wealthyRomanknight,'
who, likethe classin general,wasactivein businessaffairs.2 Doubtlesshis rise in politics
was due to the power of his money and its use in electioneering,a good enough ground
for Antonyto place him interdivisoresoperasque
campestres.
This derogatoryreferenceto Octavian'sfatheras an argentarius
was probablyfirst made
by Antonyin his edictaor in epistulaewrittenin 44 B. C. At the time of the proscrip-
tions in 43 B. C. the verse" Paterargentarius, was set up on a statue
ego Corinthiarius"
of Octavian,3a factwhichindicatesthatOctavian'senemieswerekeepingalivethe reflection
on his ancestrywhich Antonyseems first to have set afoot. With regardto Octavian's
maternalancestryit seemsthat the motherof Atia'sfatherwas perhapsthe daughterof an
" 4
"Afer who had settledin Aricia.
a staunch supporterof
as we have seen, ascribes to CASSIUSPARMENSIS,
SUETONIUS,
Antony,the epistulaquotedabovewhichcontainedthese reflectionson Octavian(Materna
tibi farina est ex crudissimoAriciae pistrino;hancfinxit manibuscollybodecoloratisNerulo-
nensismensarius.)Now KALINKA has madethe suggestion,which I am inclinedto accept,
that the epistulawas not prose,but a workin iambicsenarii:
Maternatibifarinastex crudissimo
Ariciaepistrino,hancfinxit-
may have introduced changes)
with a closing perhaps like this (SUETONIUS
decolor
5
CollybomanusNerulonensis
mensarii.
If KALINKA is correct CASSIUS was the author of an epistulain verse. We must now
considerthe question of the authorshipof the line (" Pater argentarius,ego Corinthiarius")
which was placed on Octavian's statue and also of this epigramma:
Postquambis classe victus naves perdidit
aliquandout vincat ludit assiduealeam.
which was circulated against Octavian during the Sicilian War in 36 B. C. KALINKA
believesthatboththe singleline placedon the statueandthe two lines from the epigramma
are compositions of CASSIUS, and so far I share his belief. I cannot, however, accept
his suggestionthat the single line on the statue, the two lines from the epigramma,and the
senarii (if such they were) of the epistula(assignedto CASSIUS by SUETONIUS)were all part
of one satire in the style of LUCILIUS,written by CASSIUSagainst Octavian.
KALINKAhas himself pointed out the differenceof person in the three fragments,once
the secondperson (" materna tibi", etc.), then the first person (" Pater argentariusego Corin-
1 Cf. SUET.,Aug.,iii, 1 quotedabove,p. 12. versewill presentlybe considered.
2 On his wealthsee NIcoLAus,op. cit., 2, and VEL- 4
KALINKA, op. cit., p. 44.
LEIUS,ii, 59, 2. 6 Op. cit., pp. 45-48.
3
SUETONIUS, Aug., lxx, 2. The authorshipof the

THEPOLITICAL
THE POLITICAL
PROPAGANDA
OF 44-30
PROPAGANDA
OF 44-30B. C.
C. 15
15
thiarius "), and finally the third person (" Postquam bis classe victus naves perdidit, " etc.).
The time of composition,moreover,seems to me to precludethe possibilitythat all three
fragmentsbelong to a single work. The epistula(" Materna tibi ", etc.) could have been
written,and I believe was written, in 44 B. C. in supportof Antony'sslurs on the ancestry
of Octavian, although it might, of course, have been composed later, let us say even at
the same time as the epigramma(" Postquambis ", etc.), which cannot antedatethe Sicilian
War with Sextus Pompey. But the single line in verse (" Pater argentarius", etc.)
was alreadywritten at the time of the proscriptionin 43 B. C., as SUETONIUS states,
and can scarcely, therefore, belong with the lines from the epigrammadealing with the
Sicilian War.
It is suggested by SHUCKBURGH
in his edition of SUETONIUS'
Life of Augustus, p. 8, and
also by RANKINin WESCOTT and RANKIN'Sedition of the same work, p. 195, that the
epistula of CASSIUS
PARMENSIS
was written between 35 and 31 B. C. when he and Antony
were together in Alexandria. This is, of course, quite possible, but the epistulamay also
have been written earlier, even in the years 44 or 43. On p. 4 of his edition, SHUCK-
BURGHwrites: The slanders of Antony were apparently conveyed in letters principally
written in the two or three years previousto the battle of Actium, which his friends or his
enemies published." Now Antony's slur on the maternalancestryof Octavian,at least,
was written in 44 B. C., since CICERO
replied to it in his third Philippic. Is it not also
quite possible that all Antony's derogatoryremarkson Octavian'slineage were expressed,
for the first time at least, in 44 B. C. ? I do not doubt, however,that the same statements
were made later, in the period just before the battle of Actium.
With regard to CASSIUS as a poet we have some information. PSEUDO-ACRON on HORACE,
Epistles I, 32, where Cassi Parmensisopusculaare mentioned, comments thus: " Satiras scrip-
sit- aliquot generibusstilum exercuit: inter quae opera elegia et epigrammataeius laudantur."
I agree with WEICHERT,2HOWARD,3and KALINKA, 4 that the epigrammaon the Sicilian
War (" Postquam bis ", etc.) may very likely have been written by CASSIUS,and so, too,
the line placed on the statue of Octavian (" Pater argentarius", etc.). If, then, we accept
the line on the statue and the epigrammaon the Sicilian War as the work of CASSIUS, and
if we likewise accept Kalinka'stheory that the epistulaof CASSIUS was written in senarii,
let us considerall these three fragmentsin connection with the remarksof PSEUDo-ACRON.
PSEUDO-ACRON states that CASSIUSwrote satires, indeed different kinds of satires (" aliquot
generibus"), and seems to make a distinction between elegia 5 and epigrammata,at the same
time apparentlyindicating that he wrote other kinds of satires. The two elegiac lines
1 Cf. SHUCKBURGH, 8.
op. cit., 4 cit., 45-48.
Op.
2Commentatio
11 de CassioParmensiPoeta, Grimae, 5 WEICHERT (op. cit.) thinks that certain anonymous
1834, 36 if. verses given in SUETONIUS, Aug., lxx, 1 belong to CAS-
3 Metrical passages in Suetonius ", in Harvard sius (cf. RANKIN,op. cit., 195).
Studiesin ClassicalPhilology,x, 1899, 24-25.

16 KENNETHSCOTT
(" Postquambis ", etc.), designated by SUETONIUS

as an epigramma,and the pentameter line
placed on the statue of Octavian(" Pater argentarius", etc.) may be samples of CASSIUS'
elegia, and, indeed, it is possible that his elegies were originallyincluded among his epi-
makes it clear that CASSIUS
grammata. At any rate PSEUDO-ACRON composed in different
types of verse, so we should not be surprisedif in writing satires he sometimes employed
iambic senariias had Lucilius. I Nor would a satire in the form of an epistula, if CASSIUS'
epistula (" maternatibi ", etc.) really was in verse, be out of place in satire or epigram. With
regard to KALINKA'Stheory that CASSIUSwrote a single satiric poem against Octavian,it
seems more probable that, like CATULLUS, AUGUSTUS, HORACE, or MARTIAL, CASSIUS composed
different satiric poems upon different occasions.
KALINKAhas suggested this excellent interpretationof the epistula of CASSIUS: The
mensariuswho took the maternafarina for Octavianfrom the mill at Aricia and moulded
it and kneadedfrom it an image of dough was Octavian'sfatherwho marriedAtia, and the
meal cake which he fashioned was Octavianhimself."2
There was certainly considerabletruth behind Antony's insulting remarksabout Oc-
tavian'sfamily, for Octaviandoes not ventureto refute them, merely replying to Antony's
calling him Thurinuswith the statementthat he was " astonishedthat his formername was
held up to him as a reproach."3 Nor did CICERO deny for his young friend Antony's
slurs on the Arician origin of Octavian'smaternalstock.
There is found further evidence of the abuse poured forth upon Octavian'shead by
Antony. In the third Philippic,CICERO remarks," the man whom in his edicts he calls
Spartacus,in the Senate he does not dareeven to call dishonest(improbum). " 4 It is some-
what amusingto note that the term " Spartacus" appliedto Octavianis flung back against
Antony by CICEROin the fourth Philippic.5
Two more apparentsneers at Octavianappearin the third Philippic,and CICERO pokes
"
fun at them, evidently with reason, for their obscurity of meaning: But on the saddest
subjectswhat laughterdoes he arouse! I have committedto memorysome little expressions
of a certainedict, and these he seems to think very smart; but so far I have found no one
who understoodwhat he meant. 'Nulla contumeliaest, quamfacit dignus.' First of all,
what is ' dignus'? For many are deservingof misfortune,like himself. Is it the insult
'made' by a man of rank? But what greater insult can there be? Further, what is
the meaning of ' to make insult'.? Who talks this way?
1 HENDRICKSON,
in C. P., vi,1911,p. 142haspointed anassassin,a brigand,a Spartacus." The fierceattacks
out that"in the decadefrom40 to 30 B. C. therewas madeby CICERO uponAntonyareso familiarto readers
revivalof Lucilius."
well underway an enthusiastic of the Philippics
that it has not seemednecessaryto do
2 Op. cit., 45. more than touch upon them. The generaltenor of
8 SUEroNIus,AUG.,vii, 1. CICERO'sremarksmay be seen in the passagejust cited,
4 8, 21. and he never tires of representingAntony as a drunken
5 6, 15: ((The whole conflict, therefore,Romans,is villain.
betweenthe Romanpeople, victor over all nations, and

THE POLITICAL
PROPAGANDA
OF 44-30B. C. 17
" In the second place: ' Nec timor, quemdenuntiatinimicus.' What then? Is it
usuallya friendwho makesa chargeof fear? Similarexpressionsfollow. Is it not better
to be dumbthanto say what no one understands? ... But these mattersare perhapstoo
insignificant; what I ask is this-why he was so gentle in the Senate, although he had
been so fiercein his edicts." 1 These two obscureremarksprobablyreferto Octavian
in some way. Perhapsthe last meansthat Octavian(inimicus)had chargedAntonywith
cowardice(timor).2
We should note that Octavian was not the only one who was assailed by Antony's
edicts,but QuintusCicero,the son of Marcus'brother,comes in for his shareof abuse,
as does Marcushimself.4
WhenAntonymet the senateon November28, 44, he had prepareda motionagainst
Octavianwhicha certainconsularwas to present,and this verylikelycontained
many
accusations. However,word came beforethe meetingof the desertionof one legionto
Octavianand during it of the desertionof another, so Antony refrainedfrom saying any-
5
thing abouthis rival and left the city precipitately.
When Antony had left Rome Cicero tried to induce the senate to declareAntony a
public enemy, while CalenusdefendedAntony and exchangedabusive remarkswith Cicero.
It is in Aprilof 43 thatwe hearof a furtherattackby Antonyon Octavian. In the thirteenth
Philippic,whichis filledwith violentabuseof Antony,CICERO readaloudand discussedin
the senate the terms of a letter addressedby Antony jointly to Hirtius, the consul, and
Octavian,and forwardedby Hirtiusto Cicero. Antonyrudelyjeeredat Octavian'syouth
and saidthat he owedeverythingto a name [Caesar].6 Howevertrue these pointswere,
therecanbe no doubtaboutthe factthathis youthhadbeen" castin the teeth" of Octavian
until he becameextremelysensitiveon this point.7
As we mightexpect,Antonydid not fail to reproachOctavianwith his corruptionand
bribery of the troops.8
Rumors attributingthe death of the consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, to the machinations
19, 22-23. omnianominidebes."

2 7
SUETONIUS, Aug., lxxxvi, (on writings of Mark MCCARTHY, in an article entitled "Octavianus
Antony): " Mark Antony, indeed, he calls a madman Puer", in C. P., xxvi, 1931,pp. 362-373,clearlydemon-
for writing ratherto be admiredthan to be understood. strates the frequencywith which Octavian'syouth was
Then making sport of his perverse and inconsistent touched upon in insulting fashion, and he has shown
tastein choosinga styleof speaking,he addsthe following: that the young Caesarwas evidently galled by the all
'Do you doubtwhetheryou shouldimitateAnniusCimber too frequent referencesto his youth and inexperience.
or VeraniusFlaccus,that you use the words which Sal- 8 CICERO,Phil., xiii, 17, 35: "
quamquamvos eos
lustius Crispus gleaned from the Originesof CATO? adsentationibus et venenatismuneribus "
venistisdepravatum.
Or rather,must the verbose and unmeaningfluency of The public insults put upon Octavian by Antony are
the Asiatic oratorsbe transferredto our speech?'" evidenceof morethan open enmity,for they were surely
3 CICERO,Phil., iii, 7, 17-18. an attempt to turn the people against him, and such
4 Ibid., iii, 7, 18. vilificationof characteris unfortunatelytypicalof political
6 Ibid., iii, 8, 21; v, 9, 23; xiii, 9, 19. propagandabefore and after this time.
6
CIcERo,Phil., xiii, 11, 24-25: "Et te, o puer, qui

18
18 KENNETH
KENNETHSCOTT
SCOTT
of Octavian were spread abroad after the raising of the siege of Mutina and before the
triumviratewas formed by Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian. That such reportswere also
disseminatedas politicalpropagandain the ActianWar is most likely, but at any rate they
had their originin 43 B. C. We have severalaccountsof the accusation:SUETONIUS writes,
" Since in this war Hirtius had died in battle and Pansa shortly afterwardsfrom a wound,
the rumorspreadthat both had been slain by the agency of Octavian,in order that after
Antonyhadbeen put to flightandthe statebereftof its consuls,he mightalone take possession
of the victoriousarmies. Such suspicion,indeed, was attachedto the death of Pansa that
the physicianGlyco was imprisonedon the chargeof having applied poison to the wound.
AquiliusNiger adds to this that the other consul Hirtiuswas slain by Octavianhimself amid
the confusion of the battle. 1 DIO mentions the demise of both consuls and makes
without comment the statement that Octavianwas chargedwith having put them out of
the way in orderto obtaintheiroffice.2 The suspicionevidentlywas keptalive, for TACITUS
includesit with the commenton the occasionof Augustus'death: " When Hirtiusand Pansa
had been slain-whether the enemy killed them, or whether the infusion of poison into
his wound slew Pansa, and Hirtius had been killed by his own soldiers and by Caesar,the
author of the plot-Octavian had seized the forces of both. "3 This is one place where
Octavian's enemies appear to have been clearly indulging in malicious slander, for the
evidence seems to exonerateOctaviancompletely. APPIANsays that Hirtius fell in battle
within the camp of Antony and that the corpse was rescuedby Octavian.4 The fact that
Octavianwas near Hirtius and carriedoff his body may have helped to give rise to the
tale that he had murderedHirtius. VELLEIUS mentions the death of the consuls without
referenceto any foul play, 5 and in CICERO there is no mention of any murder.6 MARCUS
BRUTUS, however,in a letterto CICERO vouchesfor the innocenceof Pansa'sphysicianGlyco :
" I most warmlyrecommendto you Glyco, who is the husbandof the sister of my friend
Achilles. I have heard that he has been suspected by Torquatus of Pansa's death, and
is held in custody as a murderer. Nothing is less credible, for who sufferedgreater
misfortunethrough the death of Pansa? Besides, he is an upright and honest man; it
seems that not even expediencywould have driven him to crime. I ask and indeed ask
urgently... that you rescue him from prison and save him. "7 He was releasedthrough
the efforts of Cicero.
It was in the campaignat Mutina that Antony seems to have chargedOctavianwith
cowardice. Suetonius says a propos of the battle at Forum Gallorumon April 15th, 43,
and of that at Mutina on April 27th, that in the former of these Antony writes that
'Aug., xi. sii, 61, 4.

2xlvi, 39, 1. 6Phil., xiv, 9, 26; 10, 28; 14, 36. Ad Fam., x,
3Ann.,i, 10, 1. 33, 4-5; xi, 9, 1; 10, 2; 13A, 1-2; xii, 30, 4; 25 B, 6.
4 iii, 71. 7Ad Brutum,i, 6, 2.

OF 44-30 B. C. 19
Octavianfledanddid not appearuntilthe next day,withouthis horseand his commander's

cloak. The storyseemsto be false, for DIOreportsthat Octaviandid not take part in
the engagement,2 and thereare plenty of otheroccasionswhen Octavianshowedunques-
tioned courageon the battlefield.

Crueltyduringthe proscriptionsand responsibilityfor them must have been a two-
edged sword in the propagandaof the Actian War, and doubtless Octavianhad to face
chargeson these scoresduringthe Perusineand SicilianWarsas well. The testimonyof
our sourcesvariessomewhatas to the degreeof responsibility
attachingto Octavian. As
would be expected,VELLEIUS exculpatesOctavian. He lays at the door of Antonyand
Lepidusthe responsibilityfor the renewalof the horrorof Sulla's proscriptionand represents
Octavianas protestingto no availandas outvotedby his two colleagues.3 And againVEL-
LEIUSshifts the responsibilityof the proscriptionupon Antony when he remarksthat the
was begunwith the bloodof the tribuneand practicallyendedwith the death
proscription
of Cicero, as though Antony had now become sated.4 In PLUTARCH the picture is one
of a cold-bloodedtradingof friendsand relativesin orderto wreakvengeanceupon enemies.
Thus Octavianis said to have surrenderedCicero to Antony, while Antony in turn gave
up Lucius Caesar,his maternaluncle, to Octavian. At the same time Lepidus apparently
surrenderedhis brother Paulus to the wrath of his colleagues.5
DIOtakesmuch the same stand as VF.T.J.F.IUS,for he points out that Antonyand Lepidus
in the course of their long public careerhad made many enemies, while Octavianwas too
youthful to have grounds for hating people. Moreover, he was naturallymild, as was
shownby his refrainingfrom severemeasuresafterhe no longerruledjointlywith his colleag-
ues. During the proscription he is creditedwith saving many people and punishing or
rewardingslaves as they had respectivelybetrayedor helped their masters; in short DIO
describesOctavianas trying to save as many as possible, Lepidus as being not inexorable,
and Antony as slaying savagely and without mercy.6
SUETONIUS' account, as often, seems to be colored here by Antonian propagandaor
pro-Antonian sources: " Octavian administered for ten years the office of triumvirrei
publicaeconstituendae,in the tenureof which he for some time indeed opposed his colleagues
in their desire to carry out a proscription,but when it was once under way he executed
it with greater severity than either of the others. For although they often could be
influenced on behalf of many by prestige and supplications,he alone stoutly maintained
that no one should be spared, and he even proscribedC. Toranius, his tutor, who had
been a colleagueof his fatherin the aedileship. Julius Saturninusgives this further infor-
1
Aug., x, 4. demandedthe death of his own brother,but it is much
2 xlvi, 38, 1. more probablethat he surrenderedhim to Octavianand
3 ii, 66, 1-2. Antony.
4ii, 64, 4. 6xlvii, 7, 1-4.
5 Ant., xix, 1-2. It is also reportedherethat Lepidus

20
20 KENNETH
KENNETHSCOTT
SCOTT
mation "WhenMarcusLepidus,afterthe proscription

hadbeenfinished,hadmade excuses
in the Senate for what had been done in the past and had offered hope of clemency for
the future, since sufficientpunishmenthad been inflicted,Octavianclaimedthathe had
put an end to the proscribingon the condition that he might have carte blanchein the
future.2 Afterwards,however,repentingof his (Octavian's)
formerinflexibility,he honored
with equestrianrankT. ViniusPhilopoemenbecauseit was saidthat he hadformerlycon-
cealedhis masterwho had been proscribed. 3
The Toraniuswho was said to have been proscribedby Octavianappearsto have
richly deservedpunishmentat Octavian'shands. Toraniuswas a tutor of Octavian,4
"
and it seems that he and the other guardiansof the young man spent his money",
as NICOLAUS writes, " but he, remittinghis just claims,was contentwith what remained."5
The reckoningwas evidently adjusted by the proscription. APPIANmakes it quite clear
that Octavian had scores to pay just as did Antony and Lepidus.6 Silicius Corona, a
patrician,who had voted for the acquittalof the liberators,though sparedfor a short time,
was proscribed and executed.7 Moreover, the senators who had incurredOctavian's
wrath when he sought to gain the consulshipwere likewise spared for a time, but finally
put on the list of the proscribed.8 SENECAdefinitely attaches blame to Octavianin the
9
proscriptions,though he makes some allowancefor the passion of youth and anger. At
the age of eighteen he had alreadybeen a colleaguein the proscription,10 and it is probably
to the proscriptionsthat SENECA'S statementrefers, that Octavian"had alreadyburiedhis
"I
dagger in the bosom of friends.
PerhapsCASSIUS OF PARMA(already discussed above, pp. 15-16) is responsible for the
chargethat Octavianproscribedpeople to get their bronzes. SUETONIUS, at any rate, writes
thatOctavian" was criticizedlikewiseas excessivelygreedyfor costly furnitureandCorinthian
bronzes and as addicted to gaming. Indeed, even at the time of the proscriptionsthere
was written on his statue-
'My father dealt in silver, I in Corinthianbronzes.'
since it was thought that he had caused certain men to be entered in the list of the
proscribed because of their Corinthian vases. 912 It seems most likely that the whole
charge, even though it originated with CASSIUSOF PARMAor some other at the time of
1 RANKIN 6 See for his general account of the proscriptions,

(op. cit., p. 267) suggeststhat this occasion
was probablythe inauguraladdressof Lepidus'second iv, 5, 51.
consulship,January1, 42 B. C. 7APPIAN,iii, 95, and DIO, xlvi, 49, 5.
2 8 APPIAN, iii, 94.
Augustus' insistence on a free hand meant only
prosecutionof the liberators. 9 De Clementia,i, 11, 1: in adulescentiacaluit, arsit
3 Aug., xxvii, 1-2. Cf. note in WESCOTT-RANKIN ira, multafecit, ad quaeinvitusoculosretorquebat.
edition, p. 267. 10Ibid., i, 9, 1.
n Ibid., i, 9, 1.
4Appian, iv, 12; see VALERIUSMAXIMUS,ix, 11, 5,
12
where the death of Toraniusis described. Aug., Ixx, 2.
5 Op. cit., 2.

OF 44-30 B. C. 21
the proscription,was exploitedby Antonyat a later date. SUETONIUS,

rightly I believe,
brands this as slander: "Of these charges or slanders he most easily refuted that for
unnatural vice by the purity of his life at the time and afterwards;thus, likewise, the
odium of extravagance,since when Alexandriawas taken he kept none of the royal fur-
niture for himself except a single murrine cup, and soon melted all the golden vessels
intended for constant use.
Here, as was usually the case in civil wars, the same charges were bandied back and
forth. As Octavianwas chargedwith proscribingpeople to get their Corinthianbronzes,
so Antony is reported to have proscribedVerres to obtain his Corinthianbronzes.2
No doubt Octavianlikewiseexercisedmercy,as in the casesof Marcus Lollius and Bar-
bula,3 and of Vinius, 4 but he can never be cleared of the responsibilityof a share in
the proscription,and RICE HOLMEShas given a fair view of the matter.
It should be noted that at the time of the proscriptionsOctavianwas alreadyindulging
in the writing of satiric verses, which were doubtless similar to his lines written during
the PerusineWaragainstFulviaand preservedfor us by MARTIAL(vide infra). Of Octavian's
verses during the period of the proscriptionswe only know that some were Fescennini
directedagainstAsinius Pollio, who wisely remarked," But I keep silent, for it is not easy
to inscribe anything against that man (in eumscribere)who is able to proscribe (proscribere). 6
In the campaignat Philippi Octavianseems to have exposed himself to later jibes for
cruelty and perhapsfor cowardice. At the time of the battle and for some while there-
after Octavianwas in very poor health.7 He apparentlyhad a narrow escape from death
in the first engagementwhen his camp was capturedby Brutus' troops. Octavian,either
warned himself by a dream or by one that his physician Artorius had, left his camp just
in time. 8 Antony had spreadabout a reportthat at Philippi, as at Forum Gallorum,Oc-
tavianhad been defeated,and escapedby flight. This traditionappearsto be represented
"
only in PLUTARCH'SLife of Antony: In the first battle, at least, Caesar, having been
overwhelminglydefeated by Brutus, lost his camp, and barely escaped his pursuersby
secret flight. But he himself has written in his Memoirsthat he withdrew before the
battle because some one of his friends had had a dream." 9 Here there were obviously
two versions of the affair, and Octavian evidently took pains to deny the alleged flight.
It looks as though enemies had taken the facts (his absence and the capture of the camp
are quite true) and distorted them so as to picture Octavianas a coward. The proce-
Aug.,Ixxi,1. Ant.,xxii,4, andxxiii,1; Dio,xlvii,37,2-3; 41,3;

2PLINY, N. H., xxxiv,2, 6. 45, 2, andxlviii,3, 1; APPIAN,
iv, 106; v, 57; SUETONIUS,
3 APPIAN, iv, 49. Aug.,xci, 1.
4 ID., iv, 44. 8 Seethelistof sourcesgivenby RICE
5 The Architect the Roman op. cit.,
HOLMES,
of Empire,i, p. 71. i, p. 86, n. 1.
" MACROBIUS,
Sat., ii, 4, 21. 9xxii, 2.
7 VELLEIUS, ii, 70, 1; PLUTARCH, Brutus,xxxviii,2;

22
22 KENNETH
KENNETH SCOTT
SCOTT
dure is so similarto the generalnature of Antony's slandersthat I am inclined to believe

that the reproachagainst Octavianwas spread either shortly after Philippi, or at any rate
later, by Antony or his friends.
Of SUETONIUS' account of Octavian'streatmentof the prisonersafter Philippi I think
we may clearly see the source in Antony's propaganda. The words of SUETONIUSare:
" Octavian did not temper his victory, but sent Brutus' head to Rome to be thrown at
the feet of Caesar'sstatue, and railed at the most distinguishedof his captives, not even
sparing insulting language. So, indeed, to one who begged humbly for burial he is said
to have replied that burial would presently be the prerogativeof the birds. When two
others, father and son, begged for their lives, it is said that he ordered them to cast
lots or play mora, to decide to which one life should be granted; and then he is said
to have gazed at the death of both, since after the father was executed because he offered
to die for his son, the latter also killed himself. And because of this all the others,
among these Marcus Favonius, the famous imitator of Cato, greeted Antony respectfully
as Imperator,when they were led forth in chains, but reviledOctavianto his face with the
most foul abuse. " 1
Let us consider SUETONIUS'account about Brutus' head. No other author mentions
the head except DIO, who states that during a storm the head was thrown into the sea
as it was being transportedto Rome,2 and it is to be noted that he makes no mention
of Octavian. Probablythe source of SUETONIUS' version is a writer hostile to Octavian,
and the accountis probablywithout foundation,especiallysince PLUTARCH credits Octavian
with praiseworthyrespectfor the deceasedBrutus: " but as for Brutus,of his enemiesAntony
buriedhim with due respect,and Caesareven guardedhis honors."3 ElsewherePLUTARCH
speaks only of honorableburial of Brutus' body. 4
Octavian,I believe, was makinga point of replyingto the charge that he had refused
a man burialwhen he wrote in his De Vita Sua, Book X, that he had observedthe practice
of not denying to their relativesthe bodies of those who were executed.5
There can be little doubt that punishmentwas determinedupon in the case of some
of the most prominentfollowersof Brutus and Cassius and the assassinsof Caesaror the
proscribed; some anticipatedit by suicide; others, like Favonius, were capturedand put
to death.6 OCTAVIAN in his Res Gestaemakesthe statementthat in all his civil and foreign
wars he " spared all surviving citizens. " 7 This is, of course, taking too much credit to
'Aug., xiii, 1-2. robe had been stolen he put the thief to death. He
2 xlvii, 49, 2. sent the ashes of Brutus to his motherServillia." Cf.
3 the sameaccountin PLUTARCH, Ant.,xxii, 4 andAPPIAN,
Syncresisof lives of Dion and Brutus,v, 1; this
continueswith the storyof how Octavianpreservedthe iv, 135.
bronzestatueof Brutusat Mediolanum in Cisalpine
Gaul.5 dam-
ULPIAN,in Dig., 48, 24, 1: De cadaveribus
4 Brutus,liii, 3: " Antony,findingBrutuslyingdead, natorum.
orderedthe bodyto be wrappedin the most costlyof 6 DIO,xlvii, 49, 4.
his own robes,and laterwhen he discoveredthat the Mon.Ancyr.,iii, 1, 14.

OF 44-30 B. C. 23
himself, more even than his staunch supporter VELLEIUS will grant him, for he writes
that from Octavian'sdisplay of mercy at Actium " it could be inferredwhat moderation
Caesarwould have displayedin his victory if he had been allowed to do so, either at the
beginning of his triumvirateor on the field of Philippi."1 VFL.TlIUSgives us, I believe,
a most interestingcase of Octavian'sside of the story, which here, as elsewhere, seems to
advance the same charges against Antony that Antony or his followers appear to have
launched against Octavian. After telling how Octavian " had no greater pleasurein his
"
victories than the sparing of Corvinus, continues:
VFT.1F.IUS Varro, when about to die,
in mockeryof Antony, with great freedom prophesiedfor Antony the death which he de-
served, and which befell him. "2 Thus we have a picture of insulting languageused
by captives in one tradition against Octavian and in the other against Antony. It is
possible, of course, that Octavianmay have inidulgedin the cruelty mentioned in regard
to the man who asked for burial and in regard to the father and son, but I firmly be-
lieve that the unpleasantdetails, at least, are based on Antonian or anti-Caesarianpro-
paganda.
The Perusine War of 41-40 B. C. was the occasion for further attempts to dis-
credit Octavian who, after Philippi, had returned to Italy to undertake the difficult
task of settling the veterans on land taken from those sections of the country which
favored the liberators.Lucius Antonius, the consul and the brother of Marcus, Fulvia,
the passionatewife of MarkAntony, and Manius, Antony's procurator,stirred up bitter
feeling against Octavian, and finally brought on civil warfare, in which the majority
of the soldiers seem to have sympathized with Octavian. Every effort was made to
win public opinion, which in a civil contest must have been of prime importance to
both sides.
It is only naturalthat the people who were dispossessedof their lands and mistreated
by the soldierswere enragedagainstOctavian,crying out that " the colonizationwas more
unjust than the proscriptions, for the latter were against enemies but the former was
againstthose who had done no injury."3 Lucius, Fulvia, and Manius also seem to have
insisted indignantly that Antony should be present in Italy, and protested that Octavian
was getting all the credit for the colonizations. Fulvia and her children even appeared
before the soldiers in an attempt to rouse feeling of devotion to Antony. Octavian's
foes evidently left no stone unturnedin their endeavorto discredit him. One sample of
the work of his obtrectatores is preservedby SUETONIUS:"At an exhibitionof games he had
given orders through an aid that a private soldier who was sitting in the fourteen rows
be ejected,and the reporthad been spreadby his detractorsthat he had later subjected
the man to tortureand put him to death. He nearly lost his life in a furious mob
1ii 86, 2. 3 APPIAN, v, 14.
2ii, 71, 1-2.

24 KENNETHSCOTT
KENNETH SCOTT
of soldiers, but was finally saved by the sudden appearanceof the soldier safe and
sound. "
It may have been at this same time, whenpeoplewerestronglydisaffectedbecause
of the confiscationsof land and scarcity of supplies, due in part to the piratical
operationsof Sextus Pompey,that all the audiencein a theatre, doubtlessinfluenced
by scurrilous stories spread, with or without foundation, by Octavian's opponents,
received as a reproach against him and applauded with the greatest approval the
following line, uttered on the stage with reference to a priest of the Mother of the
Gods, as he played his drum " Do you see how a wanton with his finger rules the
world? "2
When Lucius first began to champion the oppressed who were sufferingto satisfy
the soldiers, the troops of Antony as well as Octavian found fault with him for acting
against Antony's interest, " and Fulvia found fault with him for stirring up war at an
unseasonabletime, until Manius cunningly changed her mind by telling her that while
Italy remained peaceful Antony would stay with Cleopatra,but that if there should be
war in Italy he would come backquickly. So then Fulvia, with the jealousy of a woman,
inflamed Lucius to discord."3
Manius, however, did not use the name of Cleopatrafirst to excite the jealousy of
Fulvia, if we are to judge by our evidence. After Philippi Antony in his progressthrough
the East and before he ever met Cleopatrahad been called upon to act as arbiter in the
disputed possession of the kingdom of Cappadocia. Antony rejectedthe claim of Aria-
rathes and bestowed the kingdom upon Archelaus [or Sisina]. " And this Archelaus,"
writes DIO, " came on his father's side from those Archelai who had fought against the
Romans,but on his mother'sside was the son of Glaphyra,an hetaera." 4 APPIANrecords
2
1Aug., xiv; APPIAN, v, 15, brings out in his account SUETONIUS,Aug., lxviii, cites this in his treatment
of this episodethe necessityconfrontingOctavianof of the reproachesfor shamelessacts which were brought
winningthe favorof the soldiers:" It wasalsoof great against Octavian. Immediately before this item Sue-
momentthatthe five-yearperiodof theirrulewas now toniusgives Lucius Antonius as the authorityfor two other
passingand that they againhad need of the goodwill slanderousaccusations,and it would seem that the biogra-
of the army. On this accountat thatmomentOctavian pherwas dependingon Lucius'swritingsor some account
willinglyoverlooked theirinsolenceand arrogance. In of them as his source at this point.
the theatre,whenhe was present,a soldierwho hadno 3 APPIAN,v, 19; cf. v, 66: "[After the reconciliation
placeof hisowncrossedto thosereservedforthe knights. at Brundisium]Antony killed Manius because he had
The crowdpointedat him, and Caesarmadehim get provoked Fulvia by accusationsagainst Cleopatraand
up and depart. The army, however,was displeased had been to blame for so many things." PLUTARCH,
and the troopsstoodabouthim as he was leavingthe Ant., xxx, 2: " On the voyage,however,Antony,picking
theatreand demandedthe soldier,since they did not up those of his friendswho had fled from Italy, learned
seehim,andtherefore thoughthe hadbeenslain. When from them that Fulvia had been responsiblefor the war,
he appeared theythoughthe nowhadbeenled out from sinceby natureshe was a meddlesomeand daringwoman,
the prison,and,whenhe deniedthis andrecounted what and hoped to drawAntonyawayfrom Cleopatraif there
had happened,they saidthat he hadbeeninstructedto should be a movementin Italy."
lie, and they reviledhim for betrayingtheir common 4 xlix, 32, 3.
cause.

OF 44-30 B. C. 25
forus thereasonforAntony's
decision: " Heassigned
to Sisinathekingdombecause
Sisina's
mother,Glaphyra, to hima beautiful
appeared woman."
Beyond questionManius saw that news of this reachedFulvia'sears, and she probably
hadreasonenoughto be jealousof the fairGlaphyrabeforeCleopatrawon the favorof
in the scurrilous
Antony. Octavian, propagandathataccompanied
the Perusine,as it did
the other civil wars, took a hand himself, and, like CASSIUSOF PARMAon the other side,
resortedto verse. His attackis upon Fulvia, who with her proud and fiery temper must
have been lashed to fury by the tauntingverses of Octavian'sepigramwhich MARTIAL has
preserved:
" CaesarisAugustilascivos,livide, versus
Sex lege, qui tristis verba latina legis:
Quod futuit GlaphyranAntonius, hanc mihi poenam
Fulvia constituit, se quoque uti futuam.
Fulviam ego ut futuam? Quid si me Manius oret,
Paedicem, faciam? Non puto, si sapiam.
"Aut futue, aut pugnemus", ait. Quid, quod mihi vita
Carior est ipsa mentula? Signa canant!
Absolvislepidosnimirum,Auguste,libellos,
Qui scis Romanasimplicitateloqui."2
Lucius Antonius accused Octavian to the troops of being treacherousto Marcus.3

The officersof the armybroughtabouta temporaryagreementbetween Lucius and Octavian,
but bad feelingmadethis of shortduration,and Manius,Marcus' procurator,boldly brought
against Octavian the following accusations,that:
(1) DefraudingAntony, Octavian had freed Cisalpine Gaul.
(2) Octavian had assigned to the soldiers almost all of Italy, instead of eighteen
cities.
(3) Thirty-fourinsteadof twenty-eightlegions had been given a share in lands and
money.
(4) Nothing had been accomplishedagainst Sextus Pompey, who was oppressing
Rome by famine.
1 v, 7; L. CRAVEN,
Antony'sOrientalPolicy until the similar to that in the anonymous poem, perhaps by
Defeatof theParthianExpendition,
in University
of Mis- CASSIUS PARMENSIS, cited by SUETONIUS,in his Life of
souriStudies,Vol. iii, No. 2, 1920, pp. 29 ff., has stated Augustus,Ixx, 1; cf. SUETONIUS Aug.. lxxxv. 2: exstat
thatArchelauswasveryableas a ruler. W. GWATKIN, alter[liber]aequemodicus Epigrammatum, quaefere tem-
however,Cappadociaas a RomanProcuratorial Province, pore balineimeditabatur.I agree with MALCOVATI
in University
of MissouriStudies,Vol. v, No. 4, 1930, (Caesaris AugustiOperum 1928,p. xii, n. 3)
Fragmenta,
p. 7, n. 5, points out that at the time of the decisionby that there is no reason to reject MARTIAL'S
attribution
Antony Archelaushad not yet proven his ability. of the verses to Octavian.
'Epigr., xi, 20. The style of Augustus' verses is 3 APPIAN,v, 19.

26 KENNETH
KENNETH SCOTT
SCOTT
(5) The money raisedto combatSextus Pompeyhad been used to win the favor
of the soldiers.
(6) He was no more selling the propertyof the proscribedto the troopsthan giving
it to them.
Maniusconcludedby sayingthat if Octaviantrulydesiredpeacehe shouldrenderan
accountingfor his past acts and for the futuredo only whatwas decidedon by common
consent.l
A meeting of arbitrationthat was to be held at Gabii did not materialize,by reason
of mistrust on both sides, and " Octavianand Lucius determinedto wage war and were
alreadyemployingbitter edicts againsteach other."2 Very likely some of the bitter
remarksare identical with the "false accusations", as APPIANmakes Octaviansay in a
reply to Lucius at the surrenderof Perusia," that you artfully made againstme. "3 Prob-
ably APPIAN was basing the speeches here upon AUGUSTUS' Memoirs. The following
passagefrom SUETONIUSmay well contain samplesof these "false accusations": Lucius,
the brother of Marcus, attackedOctavianwith the chargethat after sacrificinghis honor
to Caesar he had prostituted himself also to Aulus Hirtius in Spain for three hundred
thousand sesterces, and that he was accustomedto singe his legs with glowing nutshells
that the hair might grow softer. "4
At the beginning of hostilities Octavian made a plea for peace to the Senate and
knights, in which he declaredthat he was being accused by Lucius and his followers of
cowardiceand weaknessbecausehe did not fight them. 5 When some members of these
orders went to Lucius he said that Octavianwas " playing a part ", while " Manius also
showed a letter of Mark Antony's- he either forged it, or it was genuine- saying that
they should fight if anyone tried to lessen his reputation."6 It is interestingto note
that APPIAN or his sources were not satisfied about the authenticityof the letter, which
would perhaps indicate that the practice of forging documents was not more unusual in
the Roman propagandaof 41-40 B. C. than it is today.
The real reasonwhich Lucius gave as the principalcasus belli was that Octavianand
Lepidus would not give up the triumviratewith its " violent rule" now that the period
of five years was almost up. 7 He claimed that his brother Marcus would be willing to
1 v, 22. 7 ID., v, 30, 39, and 43. H. GRUEBER, Coinagesof
2
ID., v, 24. the Triumvirs,Antony, Lepidus,and Octavian,Illustra-
3
v, 45. tive of the Historyof the Times,in NumismaticChronicle,
4 Aug., lxviii. In spite of NICOLAUS'account of Fourth Series, Vol. xi, 1911, 135-136,calls attentionto
Octavian'smodel upbringingand behavioras a youth, the fact that LuciusAntoniusduringthe siege of Perusia
it is hardto discountall the chargesof loose living which struck coins bearingon the reversethe word Pietas, a
were broughtagainstOctavian,especiallyas even his cognomenwhichhe tookto signalizehis fraternalzeal.
couldnot denythath.
to SUETONIUS,
friends,according The legendon the coinswasdoubtlessintendedto show
practicedadultery. the publicthat Luciuswas fightingon behalfof his
5 APPIAN, v, 28. brotherMarcus.
6
ID., v, 29.

OF 44-30 B. C. 27
resignhis part in the triumvirateand exchange"an unlawfulofficefor a lawfulone, a

tyrannyfor the constitutionof their fathers."1 This was the groundfor war- and
Lucius was probably sincere in his republicanstand- which he solemnly asserted in a
speech to the people in Rome before he retired to Perusia.2
The burningof Perusiaupon its final capitulationand certainexecutionsseem to have
given rise to tales of shocking brutality on Octavian'spart. SUETONIUS,who appearsto
have been employingsourcesinimicalto Octavian,gives the following account: " After the
capture of Perusia he took vengeance on very many, meeting all who tried to beg for
pardonor to offerexcuseswith one reply: ' You must die. ' Certainpeoplewritethat three
hundredmen of both orderswere selected from those who had surrendered,and sacrificed
like victims on the Ides of March at the altar erected to the Deified Julius. Some have
writtenthat he took up arms on purpose,to uncover his secret opponents and those whom
fearratherthan goodwillheld in checkby giving them an opportunityto follow the leader-
ship of Lucius Antonius, and when they had been overcome and their estates confiscated,
to pay the rewardspromised to his veterans."3 DIO CASSIUSrecords Octavian's cruelty
and tells the story of the Perusine altar and the destructionof the city by fire, though
he qualifies his account by introducing it with the phrase, " Story has it " (:o, ) ;yo0
yS E/,t). 4 SENECAaccepts the story of Octavian's crudelitas at the Arae Perusinae,5
but APPIAN'Sversion puts Octavianin a somewhatmore favorablelight. He admits that
Octavian had intended to permit his soldiers to plunder the city, but says that the con-
flagrationwhich consumedit was the work of a citizen of Perusia, a certain Cestius. Oc-
tavian then made peace with all his enemies, but the soldiers on their own initiative killed
certain of Octavian'spersonalfoes, such as Cannutius,Gaius Flavius, and Clodius Bithy-
nicus.6 The councillors of Perusia were all imprisonedand later executed, with the
exception of Lucius Aemilius, who had at one time voted for the condemnationof the
murderers of Caesar. 7 of course, rallies to the defence of Octavian's character,
VELLEIUS,
and says that Octavian sent Antonius away unharmed, and that the cruelty shown the
people of Perusiawas ratheron accountof the anger of the soldiers than the wish of their
leader. Moreover he says that the fire was set by a leading citizen of the city named
Macedonicus.8
That Octavian actually offered his enemies as a living sacrificeat the altar of his
deifiedfatherseems absolutelyincrediblewhen we realizethat the Romans did not practice
humansacrifice. He was surely too shrewdto shock the public and turn opinion against
1ID.,v, 30. 4xlviii,14,3-5.

2 As we shallsee 5 De Clementia,
presently,Octavianfelt calledupon i, 11, 1.
to makepromisesaboutthis restoration of the republic, 6
v, 49.
andthe failureto bringthisaboutwasan objectof attack 7v, 48.
upon which MarkAntonylaterseized. 8 ii, 74, 4.
3 Aug., xv.

28
28 KENNETHSCOTT
KENNETH SCOTT
himselfby an act of unnecessarybarbarity,if not impiety. The chargethat he had fo-

mentedthe war to " smokeout " his enemiesdoes not seem to accordwith his apparent
reluctanceto undertakeit. The statementthat he broughton war only to confiscatethe
propertyof those who sided againsthim soundslike an echo of the " Paterargentarius,
ego Corinthiarius" and of the story that he proscribedmen to get their bronzes,and I
believeboth tales had their originin the slanderouspropagandaof his enemies,probably
Antoniusand his associates. I
Immediatelyafterthe PerusineWar,Octavianwent to Gaul wherehe obtainedpos-
session of the army of Calenus. In the meantimefriendsof Sextus Pompeytried to
induceAntonyto makean alliancewith Pompey. Octavian,fearingwarfareagainstsuch
a coalition, tried to arouse the feelings of the people against both Antony and Pompeius.
He arousedthe colonizedsoldiersby " claimingthat Antonywas restoringPompeiusalong
with the owners of the lands which the soldiersnow held, for most of the ownershad
fled to Pompeius. And althoughthis causeof irritationwas plausible,not evenso did the
allottees zealously take up arms against Antony. "2 Without doubt there was an active
propagandakept up on both sides, and it was at least in part carriedon by the writing
of letters by the two commanders,a practiceto which they had resortedpreviously,and to
which they were later to have recourse. Cocceius, accordingto APPIAN,tried to arrange
a peace betweenthe leaders,and askedAntony if he did not wish to send a letter. " An-
tony, writes APPIAN,"replied: 'What now could we write to each other, since we are
enemies, unless we speak ill of one another?' I replied through Caecinato his former
letters. If you wish, take copies of my replies."3 In the further reply of Antony (as
APPIANhas it) when Cocceius pressed this attempt at peacemakingthere very likely have
been transmittedsome of the real complaints of Antony against Octavianat this time:
Antony protestedthat Octavianhad shut him out of Brundisium,and taken away his pro-
vinces and the armyof Calenus. Octavian'skindnessand benefactionsto Antony's friends
were an attempt to alienatetheir affectionfor Antony.4
Barelyhad the peace of Brundisiumbeen arranged,when Sextus Pompeyand Octavian
undertooka desperatestruggle for the mastery of the sea. The Sicilian War saw much
the same employmentof propagandaas went on in the previous contests of this period.
At first Octavian'sfleet met with a great disasterdue to storm, and he is reportedto have
cried out that he would obtain victory even against the will of Neptune, and on the next
celebrationof the ludi plebei in November, 41, he removed the statue of Neptune from
the procession after it had been received with great applauseby the people on the first
1GARDTHAUSEN, undseineZeit,iii, 3, 208-9,

Augustus wardsacceptanceof the story.
of the 2 APPIAN,v, 53.
quiteconvincedof the genuineness
is apparently
whole story of the Perusine altars. HADDAS,in his3 v, 60.
SextusPompey,1930,p. 79, wouldseem to inclineto-4 v, 60.

OF 44-30 B. C. 29
_
day of the games. Complaintwas made of both the speechand the act by enemies
whom SUETONIUS designates only by the expressionalii. These anonymouscritics were
probablyfriends of Lepidus, though perhapsthe referenceis to propagandistsin the service
of Antony during, or just preceding, the Actian War. The accusationof impiety, of
disrespectfor divinity, was a charge much used for purposes of propaganda,as will pres-
ently be seen. It may be that Octavianonly meant " the sea " when he used - if he
really did so - the expression " etiam invito Neptuno," but Sextus Pompey had styled
himself " Neptune " or " Neptune's son ", and Octavian was then, perhaps, referring
to the younger Pompey or his father as " Neptune ". The statue, moreover,was re-
moved from the procession not out of disrespect for the god, but because it served as
a symbol of Pompey to his sympathizers, and because its appearancemade them too
turbulent.
Soon, however,a temporarypeace was patched up between Sextus aindOctavian,but
it was presentlyviolated. APPIAN has given an excellentaccountof the appeal which Octa-
vian made to win the sympathy and support of the public: " While Antony was busied
with these matters [in Athens] the treaty which existed between Octavianand Pompeius
was broken for other reasons,as was suspected, but those declared by Octavianwere the
following: Antony had given the Peloponnesusto Pompeyon the termsthat Pompey should
take it over surrenderingthe tribute then due to himself from the Peloponnesus,or under-
taking to surrenderit himself, or else should await the collection. Pompeius, however,
had not acceptedthe countryon these terms, for he thought that it had been given to him
with the amount of tribute then due. So, angry, as Octaviansaid, whether about these
matters or in accordancewith his general faithlessness,or out of jealousy of the others
who had large armies, or because Menodorushad incited him to consider the agreement
as a truce ratherthan a durablepeace, he was constructingships and collecting oarsmen,
and once haranguedthe troops, telling them that they must be preparedfor everything.
Secret piracy again troubledthe sea, and the Romansobtainedlittle or no relief from the
famine,so that they criedout that fromthe treatyhad come no release from their sufferings,
but the acquisition of a fourth tyrant. And when Octavian caught certain pirates and
torturedthem, they said that Pompeiushad sent them out; this Octavianproclaimedto the
peopleand wrote it to Pompeiushimself,who disavowedit and made a counterchargeon
account of the Peloponnesus. "2 This professed confession of the pirates was capital-
ized, for, " as the belief was still prevalent that this war was in violation of the treaty,
Octavian tried to allay the suspicion. He wrote to the city, and himself told the
armythat Pompeiushad brokenthe treatyby practisingpiracy,tthat the piratesaccused
him of this, that Menodorus also [who had just deserted to Octavian] denounced the
1SUETONIUS,Aug., xvi, 2, and DIO,xlviii, 31. 2v, 77.

30 KENNETH SCOTT
KENNETHSCOTT
whole design,and that Antonyknew it, and for this reasonwould not give up the Pe-
loponnesus.
As was his wont, Octavianseemsto have had agentsat work. His freedmanPhil-
adelphus carried on negotiationswith Menas, freedman and lieutenant of Pompey, as a
result of which Menas " deliveredto OctavianSardinia,Corsica,three legions,a large
number of light armed troops, and probably sixty vessels." 2 Pompey demanded
that OctaviansurrenderMenas and was refused. It is possiblethat the exchangeof
chargeswhich transpiredbetween Octavianand Pompey included the slur made by
"3 Moreoverwhen Antony declinedto assist
Pompeythat Octavianwas " effeminate.
Octavian,Pompeypointedto this refusalas evidencethat Antony consideredOctavian's
causeunjust.4
The contestbetweenOctavianandPompeywasmarkedby thenavalvictoriesof Pompey,
who was aidedby wind and stormin his conflictswith his foe. His greatsuccessat sea
and the fact that his father,Pompeythe Great,had distinguishedhimselfby his famous
naval command,evidentlysuggestedto Sextus that as a piece of propaganda he should
claimthat he was of divinedescent,the son of Neptune. In so doing he was imitating
Octavianand Antony,who both claimeddivine descent. Sextus wore a sea-bluecloak,
sacrificedconstantly to Neptune, attributedhis success to that god, and depicted on his
coins images of Neptune and the trident.6
Although we do not have any statementto the effect that Octavian ridiculedPompey
or accused him of impiety for posing as Neptune or Neptune's son, such may well
have been the case. At any rate Octavian seems to have tried to encourage the belief
7
that Apollo was his patron, while the story arose that Apollo was even his father.
Perhapshe went so far as to representApollo at a banquet, of which we have the fol-
lowing account in SUETONIUS: "Likewise a rather private banquet of his which was
called by the crowd the Sao.'ah0o became the town's talk. At this banquet the
guests reclined in the garb of gods and goddesses, and Octavian himself was arrayed
1 ID., v, 80.
HADDAS, op. cit., p. 104, comments demonstratedan almostpersonalinterestin his welfare
as followson these passagesfrom APPIAN : "Of all on the partof the deity of the deep. Shall we deny
the ancients Octavian was the most consummate thatSextuspossessedsufficientpoliticalacumento em-
artist in the astute use of publicity,and we can ploy divinemachinery of his own
for the glorification
' name amongthe commonfolk? Octaviandid not
imaginewhat capitalhe made of this bit of news'.
After the war had begunanew,he still found it ne- scruple to commissionthe first poet of Rome to prove
"
cessaryto issue propaganda explainingthe cause of his descentfrom a weaker deity than Neptune. Cf.
the war." The
L. R. TAYLOR, Divinityof the Roman Emperor, 1931,
2 HADDAS,
op.cit., p. 105. pp. 120-121; Miss TAYLOR says: It is clear from the
op. cit., p. 106,
Aug., lxviii. See HADDAS,
3 SUETONIUS, case of Sextus Pompeythat these claims to divine con-
n. 33. nections on the part of the leaderswere used largelyas
"
4 HADDAS,
op. cit., p. 108.
a form of propaganda.
6 TAYLOR,op. cit., p. 121.
s ID., op. cit., p. 114, writes: "If he took the 7 Ibid., pp. 119-120.
present occasionto reiteratehis claim to descent from
Neptune, who shall find fault? Events certainly had

THE POLITICALPROPAGANDAOF 44-30 B. C. 31
as Apollo, according to charges made in Antony's letter and the very well-knownanon-
ymous verses :
Cum primumistorumconduxitmensachoragum,
Sexque deos vidit Mallia sexque deas,
Impia dum PhoebiCaesarmendacialudit,
Dum nova divorumcenat adulteria:
Omniase a terris tunc numinadeclinarunt,
Fugit et auratosJuppiteripse thronos.
The very great want and famine which then prevailedin the state fomentedthe gossip
about the banquet,and on the following day arose the outcry that the gods had devoured
all the grain and that Caesarwas clearlyApollo, but Apollo the Tormentor, a surname by
which this god was worshippedin a certain part of the city. " 1
Miss TAYLORcorrectly assigns the banquet to a period shortly after the peace of
Brundisium,but she has, I believe, been mistakenin her statementthat " Octavianis said....
to have indulged in some very unseemly gossip about the affairsof the other gods. "2
Shlecan only be referringto the line Dum nova divorumcenatadulteria,which seems rather
to mean" While Octavianpresentsat a banquetnew adulteriesof the gods." The banquet
is almostcertainlythe feastat which Liviawas betrothedby her former husband to Octavian,
a banquet which probablyoccurredabout December, 39, or early in January,38 B. C. 3
a time when the grain supply was cut off by Sextus Pompey.4 Such a banquet at this
time is mentioned by SUETONIUS 5
(convivium) and by Dio (0rTctMcc)6 in such a way as
to indicate that the betrothalcreatedscandal,7 as indeed it might. In fact, SUETONIUS in
speakingof the birth of Drusus in the home of Octavianshortlyafterthe cena remarks:fuitque
suspicioex vitricoperadulteriiconsuetudinem procreatum.Statim certevulgatusest versus:
Of course Octavianhad just divorced Scribonia,and Tiberius, Livia. Still, in spite

of these legal separationsand even if there had previouslybeen no actual adultery as was
suspected,there was ground for scandalin these divorces and in the fact that her former
husband betrothed Livia, who was pregnantby him, to Octavian. Such conduct might
easily lead to a charge of adulterium,and this is, I believe, what is meant by the line of
the anonymousverse which I have translatedabove.
The libellous verses were probably written and circulatedin 38 B. C., very likely
by adherents of Sextus Pompey and possibly also by firends of Antony. Perhaps the
1Aug.,Ixx. deDrusus,
Naissance inRev.Historique,
clxi,1929,225-236.
2 4
Op. cit., p. 119; RANKIN,op. cift., p. 337, translates: APPIAN,v, 77, and RICEHOLMES,op. cit., p. 108.
" While he feastedon novel debaucheriesof the gods ". 5 Aug., lxix, 1.
J. B. PIKE," Cenat adulteriain Suetonius," in C. J., 6
xlviii, 44, 3.
xv, 1919-1920,372 f., rendersthe line " dines the role." 7 Cf. DIO, xlviii, 44, 5.
3 Le Mariaged'Octaveet de Livie et la
J. CARCOPINO, 8 Claud., i, 1.

32
32 KENNETH
KENNETH SCOTT
SCOTT
authorwas CASSIUS OFPARMA. The chargeof impiety broughtagainstOctavianfor imper-

sonatingApollo was a matterof propagandaand is matched, as is so often the case, by a
counter-chargeof the same natureagainstAntony, and this was probablytrue in the case
of Pompey also; as I have pointed out alsewhere,l the "Apollo Tortor" is parallelled
in the tale of Antony's entry into Ephesus, whose inhabitantsgreeted him as Dionysus
yapteSoTand ytet)ltoq. "For," runs the accountof PLUTARCH, "he was, of course,
that to some, but to the many he was Dionysus 'Q)c~Tre and 'AypLtvIto.2 Antony,
moreover, impersonatedDionysus not only in Asia, but also at Athens, and in Egypt, 3
and VF.T.I.IUS describes Antony's impersonationof Dionysus at Alexandria,with his ivy
wreath,thyrsus,saffronrobe of gold, buskins, and Bacchic chariot.4 I think that we are
justified by a further remark of VET.T1IUSin believing that Antony held, or was accused
of holding, a banquet at which he was dressed as a god - doubtless Dionysus- and his
friends as gods and goddesses,for he says that at a banquetPlancus had paintedhis naked
body blue, encircled his head with reeds, attacheda fish's tail, crawled on his knees, and
danced the role of Glaucus the Nereid. 5 The similarityof the charges of impiety is
too striking to be accidental, and it affords one more proof of the "give and take " of
accusationsduring this period. As we shall see presently,there is evidence that Octavian
actually made Antony's impersonationof Dionysus one of the importantfeatures of his
political campaignbefore Actium. It is to the period of strife with Pompey that there
belongs, probably,the epigram,
" Postquambis classe victus naves perdidit,
aliquandout vincat, ludit assiduealeam,"
which has alreadybeen discussed(pp. 14-15). These lines are a mockingreferenceto Oc-
tavian's ill success at sea, with a slur at his undoubted fondness for gaming, a pastime
forbidden by law and not consonant with old-time Roman virtue.6 There can be no
doubt about the fact that Octavianwas a gambler, but Antony was equally fond of games
of chance,7 and Octavian, it seems, was never ashamedof gambling.8 Such sport was
certainly common enough among the upper classes during the Augustan age.
In 36 B. C. Octavianmadea finalattempt,cooperatingwith Lepidus, to crush Pompey,
and this time he was successful. Pompey fled to the East and sent an embassy to Antony
1" Octavian's Propaganda andAntony's' De Sua mehercules
inquit, pridiequamtu ilium
fecitAntonius
", in C. P., xxiv,1929,p. 141.
Ebrietate' relinqueres.
2 Ant.,xxiv,3-4. 6 SeeOVID'S
ii, 471-484,andCICERO,ad
Tristia,
3 TAYLOR,op. cit., 108 ff. Att., xiv, 5, where he refers to Antonyin the words ab
4ii, 82, 4. aleatore cf. in CICERO,
(pveognorov6g; Phil.,ii, 23,56,
5ii, 83, 2. Perhapsthis banquetwas describedby the case of LiciniusDenticulus,a convictedgambler,
Plancushimselfto theRomansenateafterhe haddeserted and ScoTT,Anotherof Ovid'sErrors,in C. J., xxvi,
to the sideof Octavian,
forVELLEIUS (ii, 83, 3) relatesthe 1931,pp. 293-296.
followingincident:HaudabsurdeCoponius,vir e prae-7 PLUTARCH, Ant., xxix, 1, and xxxiii, 3; Moralia,
P. Silii socer,cumrecenstransfuga
toriisgravissimus, multa 319 F.
ac nefandaPlancusabsentiAntonioin senatuobiceret,multa, 8 Aug., Ixxi.
SUETONIUS,

THE POLITICAL
PROPAGANDA
OF 44-30B. C. 33
at Alexandriato endeavorto makean alliancewith him and also embroilhim with Octa-
vian. The envoys, in urging their case, stated that Pompeypreferreda guilelessand
magnanimous man to one who was deceitfuland treacherous,aindfond of artifice.' In
view of the r8le Octavianhad playedin war and politicsone could hardlysay that the
envoys were wrong, but it must be rememberedthat with most of the politicalfigures
of this age, or of any, successwas the goal and the end justifiedthe means. Pompey
failed to make an alliance with Antony, who before long had him put to death.
The contest with Pompey affordedAntony materialfor accusationsagainst Octavian
in the yearsbetweenthe SicilianWar and Actium.Beforediscussingthis material,how-
ever, it has seemed best to turn to the eventswhich immediatelyensuedupon Sextus
Pompey'sflightfrom Sicily. Lepiduswas presenton the island,and his alreadyvast
army had been swollen by the addition of the legions which had belonged to Pompey.
His power led him to believe he might overthrowOctavian,but now, as before,in the
year44, Octavian'ssecretagentswereactivelyat work,and their efforts,secondedby the
daringof theirleader,2 deprivedLepidusof his leadership. APPIANreports that Octavian
sent his emissariesinto Lepidus' camp to tamperwith the troops and show them how they
might further their own interests. The men who had served under Pompey feared that
the terms on which they had surrenderedwould not hold unless ratifiedby Octavian,so
his agents were most active among them. 3 When the troops finally declaredfor Octavian
he spared Lepidus and devoted himself to establishingorder in Italy. One of his acts
is of especialsignificance: his burningof all the writings which were tokens of the discord.4
It seems quite probable, in fact certain, that among these writings which were burned
were some of the scurrilous lampoons, edicts, and letters, which had been put into cir-
culationas political propaganda. At the sametime Octaviananticipatedcriticismby prom-
ising entirely to restore the republic after Antony's return from the Parthian war; he
also stated that he was persuadedthat Antony, too, was willing to give up his office now
that the civil wars were over.5
In this way he neatly shifted to Antony's shouldersthe burden of any failure to relin-
quish the triumvirate. Even now, although everything seemed on the surface to point
to an end of civil discord, the populace must have been restless, and propagandaagainst
Octavianwas maintained,very likely by friends of Antony, Lepidus, and Sextus Pompey.
When Octavianrefused to take the pontificatefrom Lepidus, gave the people an account
of what he had done, declinedsome of the honors voted him, remitted the tribute required
in registeredlists and all other debts owed to the state for the time previous to the civil
war,and abolishedcertaintaxes,he still incurredadversecriticism:" Certainpeoplenow
1APPIAN,
v, 135. 4 v,132.
2
ii, 80,3-4.
VELLEIUS, s ID.,v. 132.
v., 124.
3

34
34 KENNETH SCOTT
KENNETH SCOTT
spreada reportthat Octavianat that time performedthese acts of magnanimity to bring

reproachupon Antonyand Lepidusand to shift upon them alone the blamefor the acts
of formerinjustice;andothersgaveout that,since he wasunableby any meansto collect
the debts due, he turned the people'sinabilityto pay into a favor from himself that
cost him nothing. But these remarkswere empty chatter."I
Antonycould find enoughfact in the yearsprecedingthe end of the Sicilianwar to
serve as a basis for reports intended to discredit Octavian,and SUETONIUS has preserved
some such reports.
It seems that just before the battle with Pompey between Mylae and Naulochus in
36, Octavianfell into so deep a sleep that his friends had to awaken him that he might
give the signal. This was, surely, innocent enough; but SUETONIUS surmised - and
probablycorrectly- that this fact affordedMarkAntony opportunityfor the taunt: "Not
even with steady eyes could he look upon the line of battle drawn up, but he lay in a
stupor upon his back looking up at the sky and did not arise until it was clear that the
ships of the enemy had been routed by MarcusAgrippa."2 Evidently Antony's method
in making chargeswas to use some very slight foundationor element of probability.
In the Actian campaignOctavianwas accused of cruelty during his triumvirate,and
it looks as though the following remarksof SUETONIUS may have been taken, like much
of his other material,from the propagandaof Antony: " In this same position of power
" Octaviansufferedodium for manifoldreasons. For
[the triumvirate],"writes SUETONIUS,
when, as he was addressinga group of soldiersto whose number a throng of citizens had
been admitted, he noticed that Pinarius, a Roman knight, was taking notes, he ordered
him to be stabbed on the spot since he thought he was an informerand spy. Likewise
because Tedius Afer, the consul elect, had spitefully found fault with a certain deed of
his, Octavian voiced such dire threats that Afer threw himself over a cliff. And again,
when Quintus Gallius, the praetor,was paying his respects and concealingtablets of two
leavesbeneathhis garment,Octaviansuspectedthat he was hidinga sword. At the moment,
however, he did not dare to make any investigationlest somethingdifferentfrom what he
expected might be found. But a little later he had Gallius carriedoff from the tribunal
by centurionsand soldiers,torturedlike a slave, and, when he made no confession, killed,
after first, with his own hands, digging out Gallius' eyes. Octavian,however,writes that
after Gallius sought an interview and tried to make a treacherousattack upon him, he
had him placedin custody,while afterhe was releasedundersentenceof banishmenthe either
perishedby shipwreckor was waylaidby bandits." 3 APPIAN, who placesthis last incident
in the year 43 B. C., merelysays that OctaviandiscoveredGalliusplottingagainsthim
and orderedhim to departto his brotherMarcusGallius,who was servingwith Antony,
Dio, xlix, 15, 4-5. 3Aug., xxvii, 3-4.
2Aug., xvi, 2.

THE POLITICALPROPAGANDAOF 44-30 B. C. 35
"
while he adds that " it appearsthat he boardedship and was nowhereseen again. I
It is verylikelythattheseaccusationswerelaunchedby Antonybeforethe Actianwaror
duringit. They probablyhadbut littlefoundation, but, as has beenshownabove,the
merestappearance of possibilitywouldfurnishAntonywith materialfor his propaganda.
As regardsthe chargeof cruelty it seems that Octavianwas comparativelyhumane for the
of his time.2 He was,however,compelled
standards to writein his defence,as on this
occasion,and it must have been necessaryfor him to be constantlyon guardagainst
chargesof cruelty. APPIANinformsus that afterthe SicilianWara tribunewho incited
Octavian'stroops against their leader " vanishedon the followingday, and it was not
knownwhatbecameof him." 3 Sucha rumorcouldfurnishcapitalmaterialfor Antony's
agents,and perhapsit is theircreation.
From36 to 32 the stormof civilwar was brewing. Outwardly
therewas peacebe-
tween Octavianand Antony, but in secret they were forgingthe weaponsfor a deadly
combatto decidewho shouldbe masterof the Romanworld. Not the leastimportant
preparationwas propaganda,for each leader fully realized the necessity of obtaining the
supportof public opinion. The main differencewas one of emphasis. Antonyhad to
bid forthe supportof the Eastfirstof all. To Octavianthe West was all-important. Un-
for Antony,reportsfromEgyptand theEastafforded
fortunately his rivalreadymaterial
for propaganda.
In Athens,in celebration
of Ventidius'
victoryin 38 B. C., Antonyfeastedthe Greeks
and playedthe part of gymnasiarchand appearedwith Greek robe, white shoes, and gym-
nasiarch'swand.4 At Alexandria,too, if reportbe true, he triedto win the favorof the
citizensof thatcity. He diced,drank,and huntedwith theirqueen,and at nightboth
put on the garbof servantsand had mad escapadeswith the commonpeople. Antony's
coarse wit and easy ways found favor with the Alexandrians,who said that he " used the
tragicmaskwith the Romans,but the comicmaskwith them." 5
Such conduct in Athens and in Alexandriaduring his first visit there, after Philippi,
was lackingin the gravitywhichsuiteda Romancommander,
and theseacts,"follies"
iii, 95. vianmerelyhad recourseto civil action,as any Roman
2
For example,SUETONIUS
(Aug., li) himselfwrites as citizen might have done when attackedby a lettersigned
follows: "Of his clemencyand affabilitytheevidences witha falsename. Octavianevidentlymadea pointof
are manyand strong. I need not enumerate all those dealingwith slanderas if he werean ordinarycitizen,
of the oppositepartyto whomhe grantedpardonand whileas a rulehe preferred
to ignoresuchattacks. Ti-
immunityand even permittedto hold high positionsin beriusfollowedthe same generalpolicyin the earlier
the state. He was satisfied to punish two plebeians, part of his reign. SUETONIUS
cites Octavian'smildness
JuniusNovatusand CassiusPatavinus,the formerwith in the case of AemiliusAelianus(Aug., li). He also
a fine and the latterwith a mild form of exile. Yet tells (Aug.,lxvii, 1) of Octavian's
slave,Cosmus,"who
Novatusunderthe nameof the youngAgrippahad put spokeof him in mostinsultinglanguage " and " whom
into circulationa most bitter letter about Octavian; he merelyput in fetters."
Cassiushadaffirmed at a crowdedbanquetthathe lacked 3
v, 128.
neitherthe wish nor the courageto stab Octavian." 4 PLUTARCH,
Ant., xxxiii,4.
It wouldseemthat,in the caseof JuniusNovatus,Octa- 6 Ibid.,xxix, 1-2.

36
36 KENNETHSCOTT
KENNETHSCOTT
from the Roman point of view, were arrayedagainst Antony when the time came to bid
for the support of public opinion in Rome and Italy.
Lack of success in warfare generally affords a ready lever to overthrow the reputation
and popularityof a general. Such a lever, ready for Octavian'shand, was the failure of
Antony's Parthiancampaignin 36 B. C. At the time Octavianwas still embroiledwith
S%xtusPompey, a fact which doubtless convinced him of the advisabilityof maintaining
friendlyrelationswith Antonyandnot makinga stirabout the debacleof Antony's campaign.
Antony,to be sure,triedto give the impressionin his dispatchesthat he had been victorious,
telling just the opposite of what was true. Octavianand his advisers are said to have
known the truth but to have kept from exposing the situation to the public, at least for
the moment, and to have made sacrificesand held festivals.I Surely it was not only rumor
that brought the tale of the defeat to Octavian, for we have had sufficientproof of his
practice of keeping spies in his rival's ranks.
Though Octavian officially pretended to be duped by Antony's lying reports, he
saw to it, no doubt, that rumor told of the failure of the Parthian expedition, and
besides, for purposes of propaganda,a subtle reason was suggested for Antony's with-
drawal, namely that he had been bewitched by the charms of the Egyptian queen and
deserted the campaignto hasten to her. Such is the traditionpreservedby PLUTARCH,2
and it was a masterly stroke to represent Antony as the slave to a foreign queen.
Indeed the gifts of whole provinces which Antony made to the queen excited uni-
versal indignation at Rome,3 and naturallythis matterwas kept before the Romans by
Octavian.
Another affair of no little importanceenabled Octavian still further to arouse public
opinion against Antony. In 35 B. C., Octavian permitted his sister Octavia, Antony's
wife, to sail off to join her husband. Most people said that he did so " not as a favor
to her, but in orderthat, if she were scornedand neglected,this might furnishhim a fitting
excuse for war. " 4 This reason bears the earmarksof Antony's propaganda,no matter how
much lay behind it. Octavia was, at any rate, rudely turned back by Antony, who now
marriedCleopatraafter having acknowledgedhis children by her, Alexander" Sun " and
Cleopatra" Moon ", as they were called.5 To have two wives at one and the same time
was contraryto Romanlaw and a statuswhich no Roman previously had dared to adopt.6
This fact placedAntony in a very bad light at Rome, and to meet the outcry set up by the
1Dio, xlix, 32, 1-2. IturaeaandChalcisto Cleopatra;in 34 he gaveherthe
2 Ant., xxxvii,4. remainderof CoeleSyria,Jericho,a partof Arabia,and
3 Ibid., xxxvi, 1-4.
DIO, xlix, 32, 4-5. J. DOBIAS, the Phoeniciancoast.
La deuxieme donationd'Antoinea Cleopatreen 34, in4 PLUTARCH, Ant., liii, 1; cf. GARDTHAUSEN,Die
ListvFilologicke,
1922,183-195,and257-263,showsthat Sche'dungder Oktaviaunddie Hochzeitder Kleopatra,
two donationsto Cleopatraare confusedby DIOand in NeueJahrbiicher,1917,158-169.
and that JOSEPHUS 5
PLUTARCH, gives a correct account of PLUTARCH, Ant., xxxvi, 3.
the eventsin Syriain 36-34. In 37-36 Antonygave 6 Dem.and Ant., iv,
ID., Syncresis 1.

THE POLITICAL
THE POLITICAL PROPAGANDA
PROPAGANDA OF 44-30B.
OF 44-30 B. C.
C. 37
37
Romans and doubtless stimulated by Octavian,' Antony appearsto have propoundeda

remarkableand seeminglyunfortunatetheory, though perhapsit may have been cunningly
"
attributedto him to place him in an even worse position: "However, writes PLUTARCH,
"since he was good at taking pride in his disgracefulacts, he said that the greatnessof
Roman power was manifestednot by what they took but by what they bestowed. And
he also stated that nobleness of breed was amplifiedby successive begetting of many
kings. So, at least, his own progenitor had been begotten by Heracles, who did not
confine his successionto a single womb nor fear Solonian laws and regulationsof concep-
tion, and who gave free course to nature,leaving behind many beginnings and foundations
"
of families. 2 If this theory was falsely ascribed to Antony, the purpose would have
been to shockRomanfeelingsand to credithim with the tendencies of an Oriental despot,
and other evidence of such an attempt will presently be treated.
In 34 Antony brought upon himself no little discredit by seizing Artavasdes,king of
Armenia,by false promises,and takinghim in golden chains to Alexandria,where he cele-
brated a veritable triumph.4 For a time it served Octavian'sends to suppressAntony's
despatches about the Armenian king, and the reasons are probablythose given by Dio,
namely, that Octavian pitied that king with whom he had been in secret communication
in order to harm Antony, and likewise because he begrudgedAntony a triumph.5 Oc-
tavian,as usual, seems to have employeddiplomacyand deceptionto circumventAntony in
the East, and it would not be surprising if Antony's despatchescontained accusations
that Octavianhad subornedArtavasdesto work againstthe Roman cause. Octaviancould
not have permitted such damagingchargesto be made public. Soon, when the current
of popularfeeling was runninghigh, he announcedAntony's treacherytowardthe Armenian.
The celebration of the triumph worked to Antony's disadvantageat Rome, for it
strengthenedthe point, made by Octavian somewhat later, that Antony wished to transfer
the capital of the Empire to Alexandria. PLUTARCH says, of the triumph at Alexandria:
"
In this did Antony especiallyoffend the Romans, since for Cleopatrahe granted to the
Egyptians the fair and holy rites of his native land. "6
As we have seen, Octaviantemporarilysuppressedcertainreports, but he was equally
anxiousto have others which arrivedin 32 B. C. published. The two pro-Antoniancon-
1At Athens, where Antony had " wed " the goddess "
(Julius,lii, 3) writes: Helvius Cinna, a tribuneof the
Athena, someone now wrote on his statue this formula people,admittedto severalthat he had a bill writtenand
of divorce: " Octaviaand Athena to Antony: res tuas preparedwhich Caesarhad orderedhim to introducein
tibi habe" (SENECA, Suasoriae,i, 6.) This may have his absence. It providedthat Caesarbe permittedto
been the work of Octavian'sagents,thoughthe Athe- marryany womanand as manyas he wishedin order
nians had enoughgroundsof their own to hateAn- to begetchildren."
tony. 4 Dio, xlix, 39-40; ii, 82, 3.
VELLEIUS,
2Ant., xxxvi, 1-4. 5 xlix, 41, 5-6.
3 A similarstory, doubtlessmalicious 6 Ant.,
gossip set afoot 1, 4.
by enemies, is told about Julius Caesar. SUETONIUS

38 KENNETH
KENNETH SCOTT
SCOTT
suls of the year, Sosius and Domitius,preventedtheir publication,for in them Antony

askedconfirmation
for his acts: he hadgivenPtolemythe nameCaesarion
andthe title
" King of Kings ", claiming that he did this out of honor for Caesar, but really to cast
reproachon Octavianas being only an adopted son of Julius, while Caesarionwas a real
son. Moreover he had made huge grants of territory to Cleopatraand his children by
her, and had given the queen the title of " Queen of Kings ". 1
These mattersOctavianreportedto the Senate and denouncedto the people at frequent
intervals in an attempt to inflame the multitude against his rival; likewise he stressed
Antony's desertionof Octavia,and the fact that Cleopatraappearedin public as the New
Isis.2 At the same time he claimedthat Antony held Egypt and other territorywhich he
had not drawn by lot, that he had encompassedthe death of Sextus Pompey, that his
treachery toward Artavasdes had brought discredit upon Rome. He demanded half of
Antony's spoils, and heaped reproachesupon him because of Cleopatraand his children
by her and his gifts to them, but most of all he complainedbecause Antony had named
Ptolemy Caesarionand thus tried to assert that he was Caesar'sson. 3 The last point
was fraught with grave danger for Octavian,for his claim to power rested almost solely
on his adoptionby Caesar,on the fact that he was Divi filius. Antony, realizingthis, was
making a play to win the sympathy of the followers of Caesarfor Caesarion,who he
asserted was Cleopatra's son by Julius Caesar. It was almost certainlyas a counter-
blastthat GAIUSOPPIUS, a friendof the deadCaesarand now evidently a partisanof Octavian,
contradictedin a pamphlet the statement of Antony that Caesarionwas Caesar'schild. 4
Equally alarming was Antony's attempt to force Octavianto abandon his power as
triumvir or else accept the onus of being responsiblefor the continuanceof this office.
That Octavianwas frequently charged with obstructingthe restorationof the republic is
shown by SUETONIUS' statementthat he first thought of restoringit immediatelyafter the
downfallof Antony " because he rememberedthat Antony had rather frequentlysaid that
Octavianstood in the way of its restoration." 5 Antony's move was purely propaganda,an
attempt to turn feeling against Octavian. Through CleopatraAntony could control the
East with or without an official status, but Octavian, dealing with Italy and the West,
must be in office or fall.
For some time before the open outbreak Antony kept sending counter-accusations
against Octavian, making the following charges: Octavian had seized Sicily and refused
to share it and had done the same with Sextus Pompey's army as well as with Lepidus'
army, territory and revenues. Besides he had never returnedthe ships which he had
1DIO, xlix, 41, 1-4; GRUEBER,in Num. Chron., 2
PLUTARCH,Ant., liv, 3-6.
Fourth Series,xi, 1911,p. 150, calls attentionto coins of 3 DIO, 1, 1, 4-5.
Antony which have on their reversea bust of Cleopatra 4 SUETONIUS, Julius, lii, 2.
with the stem of a prow behind, and the inscription 6Aug., xxviii, 1.
CleopatraeReginaeRegumFiliorumRegum.

OF 44-30 B. C. 39
borrowedfromAntony,and he haddistributedalmostall of Italy to his own soldiers, leaving

nothing for those of Antony. I
Octavianmade, it seems,an insolentreplyto Antony. He stated that he had deposed
Lepidus for abuse of office, and that he would share his spoils whenever Antony would
shareArmeniawith him. Then he sarcasticallyadded that Antony's troops had no claim
to Italy, " for they held Mediaand Parthiawhich they had joined to the Roman possessions
by contesting bravely under their commander."2
The charges made by both triumvirswere in a way intendedas a justificationof their
conduct, and their communicationswere made by private letters, by public addressesof
Octavian,and by public messagesfrom Antony. The constant sending back and forth of
envoys enabled them to reconnoitreeach the other's position, and besides they wished to
appearjustified in their complaints.3 Both were courtingpublic opinion, and attempting
each to blacken the characterof his rival.
Another form of propagandais found in the building operationsof the period. Oc-
tavian'stempleof the PalatineApollo was being erected when the temple of Apollo on the
Campus Martius was rebuilt between 34 and 32 B. C. by Antony's friend, Sosius. 4
One point on which Octavianrelied in his attempt to discredit Antony at Rome was
the fact that Antony had outragedRomanconventionsby abandoningOctavia and marrying
a foreign queen. Antony evidently tried to turn the tables by writing that Octavianfirst
betrothed his daughterJulia to his [Antony's]son Antonius, and then to Cotiso, king of
the Getae. At the same time, Antony continued,Octavianalso had sought for himself in
marriagethe hand of Cotiso's daughter.5 In 34 Octavian seems to have made a deter-
mined effortto win the supportof Cotiso, who, in spite of all Octavian could do, took the
side of Antony in the end. 6 One is forced to wonder what Livia would have thought of
allowing Octavianto divorce her and marryCotiso's daughter. If Octavianever formed
such a plan, it was doubtless Livia who frustratedit, and threw Cotiso into Antony's
camp. It is, however, more probable that Antony chose to explain Octavian'sattempt
to make a purely political alliance as involving plans for matrimonialalliances as well.
Such an interpretationof Octavian'sdiplomacy would provide Antony with an excellent
1PLUTARCH, Ant.,Iv, 1-2. Cf. DIo, 1, 1, 2-3. He of 'jockeyingfor position' betweenthe friendsof Octa-
gives muchthe samecausesand pretextsfor the war, vianandthe agentsof Antony. The factthatOctavian
addingonly that Antonydemandedhalf the soldiers wasbuildinga newtempleof Apolloon the Palatinewas
leviedin partsof Italywhichbelongedto them both. sufficient
reasonfor an Antonian to endeavorto offsetany
2 PLUTARCH,Ant.,lv, 2. Of coursetheyhadneither religiousadvantage whichmightthusaccrueto Octavian,
Media nor Parthia,whencethey had been drivenin
·
by rebuildingthe old templewithits fourhundredyears
* · n- a
ignominiousflight. of religioustraditionbehindit." Cf. SHIPLEY,C. Sosius:

8 Dlo, 1, 2, 1.
His Coins,His Triumph,and His Templeof Apollo,in
Cf. F. W. SHIPLEY,The BuildingActivitiesof the WashingtonUniversity
Studies, New Series, No. 3, 1930,
ViriTriumphales from44 B. C. to 14 A. D., in Memoirs p. 84.
of the American Academy in Rome,ix, 1931,p. 27, n. 3: Aug.,Ixiii,2.
5 SUETONIUS,
"At this time therewas goingon in Romea gooddeal 6MOMMSEN, Res Gestae,2d ed., 1883,p. 130.

40 KENNETHSCOTT
counter-charge to the rebukes made against him for his relations with the foreigner,
Cleopatra.
Indeed Antony took occasion to heap upon Octaviancharges of adultery which were
very likely not without considerablefoundation.I The charges are given by SUETONIUS
as follows: " That Octavian practised adultery not even his friends deny, although they
indeed offer the excuse that he did so not from lust, but from policy, in ordermore easily
to learn the plans of his opponents through their women. Mark Antony, besides, re-
proachedhim for his hasty marriage with Livia, and because he took the wife of an
ex-consulfrom the dining room in the presenceof her husbandinto a bedroomand brought
her back to the banquetwith her ears glowingand her hair in disorder.2 He also rebuked
Octavianfor divorcing Scribonia because she had too freely complainedof the excessive
influence of a mistress,3 and for having mistresses sought for him by his friends, who
stripped and inspected marriedwomen and maidens just as if the slave-dealerToranius
were offering them for sale. Antony also writes to Octavian as follows in an intimate
way while he was still not yet publicly or privately his enemy :4 'What has changed
you? Is it because I have relationswith the queen? She is my wife. Am I starting
now or did I begin nine years ago? Do you in short lie with Drusilla alone? Good
luck to you, if, when you shall read this letter, you have not been with Tertulla,or Teren-
tilla,5 or Rufilla, or Salvia Titisenia or all of them. Or what differencedoes it make
where or with whom you take your pleasure?'" 6
On the first of January,32 B. C., the new consuls,Antony'sfriends, entered upon office,
and one of them, Sosius, spoke in praise of Antony and against Octavian.7 Thereupon
Octavianwent with a bodyguardto the Senate, took a seat with the consuls, and defended
himself, at the same time makingaccusationsagainstSosius and Antony.8 The next move
came from the consuls,who both fled from Rome to Antony. After their flight, Octavian
summonedthe senatorsand discussedthe situation,while Antonyfor his part called together
a sort of senatecomposedof his friends, and decided on war. Two of Antony's followers,
Titius and Plancus, perhaps because of a quarrel with Antony or Cleopatra,then went
over to the side of Octavian.9 It is also quite possible that bribery may have had some-
thing to do with their desertionof Antony.
1 Cf. SUETONIUS, 3 This probablyrefers to Livia.

Aug., lxxi, 1: "He kept his repu-
tationfor wantonness also, as they say,
and afterwards 4 The yearis probably
32, andrelations
werestrained,
he was ratherinclinedto violatemaidenswho were to say the least.
soughtout for him fromeveryside even by his wife." 5 Evidently to Terentia,the wifeof Octa-
a reference
There is probablysomethingbehindall this scandal, vian'sfriendMaecenas.
thoughmost of it shoulddoubtlessbe disregarded. 6Aug., Ixix, 1-2.
2 CARCOPINO,
Ioc.cit., has proposedwith the greatest 7 DIO, 1, 2, 3.
thatthe wife of the consularwas noneother
probability 8 ID.,1, 2, 5.
than Livia,and that the banquet is that describedby 9 ID., 1, 3, 2.
DIo, xlviii,44, 3.

OF 44-30 B. C. 41
At anyratetheyprovedinvaluable
to Octavianin morewaysthan one. Plancusbrought
terrible accusations against Antony in the Senate, ' and the two turncoatstold Octavian
about Antony's will, which was on deposit with the Vestal Virgins. Octaviandemanded
the document,and the Vestalswere unwillingto surrenderit, but told him that he could,
of course, take it, which he promptly did. He is said to have read the will in private,
marked certain passages, and then read it aloud to the senators, who were evidently at
first distressed at the reading of a man's will before his death. Soon, however, their
feelings were changed when they heard the contents read.2 Before the items are men-
tioned, it is necessaryto consider recent discussion of the authenticityof the will.
ROSTOVTZEFF has suggested that the alleged will of Mark Antony which was read by
Octavianin the senate to incite the Romanswas really forged by Octavian. ROSTOVTZEFF
writes, " The legend [that Antony was intending to make Italy a province of Egypt] was
confirmedby Octavian'spublication of the last will and testament of Antony, which he
was alleged to have deposited with the Vestal Virgins. It is hard to believe in the au-
thenticity of this document, unless we assume that Antony was practicallyinsane," and
in a note he adds, " I cannot help thinking that the testament of Antony was a forgery
of Augustus and of Antony's two former friends, Munatius Plancus and M. Titius, who
betrayedhim because of Cleopatraand fled to Rome. It was all-importantfor Augustus
to convince Italy that Antony was a slave to Cleopatraand almost a madman. (Plut.,
Ant., 60; and Cassius Dio, 10, 5, 3). Without the whole-heartedsupport of Italy Au-
gustus was lost, especially as the heavy taxation aroused general indignationall over the
peninsula. Little wonder if Augustus had recourseto forging a document which nobody
but a madmanwould have kept in Rome. The trickwas successful. If Antony protested,3
his protests could not be heard in Rome and were soon drowned by the tumult of the
war. Cp. V. Gardthausen, Augustusund seine Zeit, I, p. 349 if. " 4
As RICEHOLMEShas pointed out, of the alleged contentsof the will, namely, a reaffir-
mation that Julius Caesar was the father of Caesarion,a bequest of legacies to Antony's
children by Cleopatra,and a clause directingthat he be buried beside Cleopatra,the first
two aresubstantiatedby definiteacts of Antony.RICEHOLMES continues:"Does he [Rostovt-
zeff] disbelievethe statementof Plancusand Titius that Antony'swill, which they professed
to have witnessed and sealed, was in the custody of the Vestals, and mean that Plancus,
Titius, and Octavian, drafting a fictitious document, concocted the whole story? Or,
admittingthat Octaviantook the will from the Vestals, does he believe that what he read
in the Senate was a forged version? In the former case the Vestals would have denied
that the will had been depositedwith them; in the latterthey would have exposedand
1 VELLEIUS,ii, 83, 3. 4
Socialand EconomicHistory of the RomanEmpire,
2
PLUTARCH, Ant., Iviii, 3-4. 1926, 29 and 494, n. 24.
3 My italics.

42 SCOTT
KENNETHSCOTT
KENNETH
of Plutarch,[Ant.,58, 2; cp. Dio, I, 3, 4] that

the forgery. The statement
denounced
many were scandalizedby the seizure and disclosureof the will is credible enough; but
to provokethe reveredVirginsby forgerywouldindeedhave been ' practicallyinsane.'" 1
Despite RICE HOLMES'closing remark, it does not seem by any means certain that
Octavian would not have risked provokingthe Virgins by forgery had it been necessary
to attain his ends. On the other hand the general confirmationof the alleged terms of
the will by actual and undoubted proceedingsof Antony is an argumentin favor of the
authenticity of the will. And the argumentsof RICEHOLMES may be strengthenedby
other importantpoints.
The Roman public, accordingto every source we have, accepted the will as genuine,
nor have we any tradition of its authenticitybeing denied by Mark Antony or anyone
else. Our sources, and SUETONIUS especially,contain much informationand politicalpro-
pagandataken directly from Antony or pro-Antoniansources, yet there is nowhere a hint
that the will was forged,or that Antony deniedthat it was his. If the document had been
a forgery, Antony would surely not have missed the opportunityto charge Octavianwith
forgery in those very letters which SUETONIUS had at his disposal in some form and
from which he quotes. It is scarcelycrediblethat SUETONIUSand all later historianshave
passed over even a rumor that Antony charged Octavianwith forgery. How well it
would have suited TACITUS,for example, to incorporatesuch a report among the sayings
he puts in the mouths of anti-Caesariansafter Augustus' death !
In fact, we have, it would seem, a tradition that Antony admittedthat the will was
actuallyhis, and this traditionseems to have been overlookedin the discussionof ROSTOVT-
ZEFF'S theory. DIO CASSIUS gives what purportsto be a speech of Antony to his soldiers
at Actium, and in the address is found the following: " Now as for the man who dared
while I was still alive and had so great power and was conqueringthe Armenians,to
searchfor my will, to take it by force from those who had receivedit, to open it and read
it in public,how should a man like that spare either you or anybody else? "2
In this speech DIOhas Antony acknowledgethat the will was his. Of course objection
may be offered on the ground that the speech is only a fabricationof DIO'S. The other
points of the speech are, however, consonantwith the actual situation, and I am inclined
to believe that DIO is here giving, in his (Dio's) own language to be sure, the salient fea-
turesof Antony'scaseas he statedit to the soldiers in his campaign before Actium, whether
these featureswere expressedin a single speech at the time stated or not. It also seems
significantthat DIO,with the materialhe had to draw upon, evidently felt he had grounds
to representAntony as admittingthe authenticityof the conditions of the will. ROSTOVT-
ZEFF'Stheory is indeed novel, and Octavian, had he felt the need, would perhaps have
1
Op. cit., 246-247. 21,20, 7.

THE POLITICAL
PROPAGANDA
OF 44-30B. C. 43
indulged in forgeryto discredit his rival, but in this case all the evidence of our sources
seemsto disprovethe theoryof a forgedwill.
The contents of the will served in the main to reaffirmcertain of Antony's acts. He
statedthereinthatCaesarion
wasCaesar's
son,madeenormouspresentsto his own children
by Cleopatra,andgavedirections
forhisfuneral. Thesedirectionsweremostdamaging,
for he had ordered that, if he should die in Rome, his body be sent to Cleopatrafor
burialin Egypt. This, as well as the othertermsof the will, causedthe indignant
Romansto believethe reportwhichwas beingcirculatedto the effect that Antony, if success-
ful in his ambitions,wouldbestowthe city of RomeuponCleopatra,and transferthe
capitalof theempireto Alexandria.
2 Fearof theOrient evenoverthe friendship
prevailed
which many Romans had for Antony, and in their consternationmany of his friends cen-
3
suredhis conduct.
At this time Octavian'sinterestswere served not only by Titius and Plancus, but also
by Calvisius, who made the following charges against Antony, most of which were even
then consideredfalse : Antonyhadbestowedupon Cleopatrathe great library at Pergamum;
at a banquethe had arisenand rubbedher feet; he consented to have the Ephesiansgreet
her in his presence as mistress; when he was dispensingjustice on the tribunal he was
accustomedto receiveandreadlove-letters
fromher inscribedon onyxand crystal;finally,
he hadleft a trialwherehe was presidingin the Forumin orderto followthe litterof
Cleopatrawhenshe chancedto passby.4 Whetherthesestoriesweretrueor false,they
showthe subtletyof Octavian'spropaganda.He didnotwishto givethe impression that
the oncomingstrugglewas a civil warto be waged against a Roman commanderand Roman
troops. It was muchmoreadvantageous
to makeit out to be a foreignwarcarriedon
againsta dangerous queen. Antony'spartwas explainedby the partyof Octa-
Egyptian
vian as that of a Roman generalwho been bewitchedand enslavedby Cleopatra. Hence
Antonywas reviledas no longermasterof himself. He calledCleopatra" queen" and
" mistress", actedas gymnasiarch
at herrequest,andpresentedher witha bodyguardof
Romanlegionaries 5
whoseshieldsboreher name. He dancedattendance on her every-
where and adopted Orientalways, terming his headquarters" the palace", wearing
Orientalgarbandcarrying
an Orientaldagger,recliningin publicupon a gildedcouch
1 Dio, 1, 3, 5, and PLUTARCH, Ant., Iviii, 3-4. L'Oriente e l'Occidentenel mondo romano,in Nuova
2Dio, 1,4, 1-2. The sameformof propaganda seems Rivista Storica, vi, 1922, 141-147, and especially
to have been employed against Julius Caesar,for SUE- 148-152.
TONIUS,Julius, lxxix, 3, writes: "Nay, the rumor had 3 Dio, 1, 4, 2.
even gone forththat Caesarwouldmoveto Alexandria 4 PLUTARCH, Ant., Iviii, 5; lix, 1.
or Ilium, at the same time transferringthe wealth of 5 Cf. SERVIUS on the Aeneid, viii, 696: " In the
the empireanddrainingItalyby levies,whilecareof the Commemoratio'
VitaeSuae Augustussays that Antony
city would be left to his friends." Cf. CHARLESWORTH, orderedhis legions to keep guard at Cleopatra'spalace
TheFearof theOrientin theRomanEmpire, "
in Cambridge and to obey her nod or command.
HistoricalJournal,ii, 1926, 1-16, and BARBAGALLO,

44
44 KENNETHSCOTT
KENNETH SCOTT
and posing as Osiris or Dionysus for portraitsor statues, while Cleopatratook the part of
Isis or Selene.I
Octavian'swishes were fulfilled, and war was declarednot against Antony but against
with hercreatures
Cleopatra Mardion,Pothinus,Iras,andCharmion.
2 No actionat all
was takenagainstAntony, for Octavianknew that he would not desert her, and this would
makeit appearthatAntonyhadvoluntarily
takensidesagainsthis nativeland,although
3
he himselfhad not beeninjured.
Certain stories found in PLUTARCHare probably evidence of Octavian'spropaganda.
Signs indicative of divine wrath against Antony are the following: Pisaurum, colonized
by chasmsin the earth. A marblestatueof Antonyat Alba
by Antony,was swallowed
gave off sweat for many days, though the sweat was frequentlywiped away; while he was
at Patrae the Heracleumwas destroyedby lightning (he claimed descent from Heracles);
at Athensthe Dionysusin the battleof the Giantswas hurledinto the theatreby the
wind(hewaspopularly withDionysus),andthe samegaleprostrated
identified the colossal
figuresof EumenesandAttalusat AthensuponwhichAntony'snamehadbeenwritten;
underthe stemof theflagshipof Cleopatra, calledAntonius,swallowsmadetheirnest,but
otherswallows drovethemoutanddestroyed theiryoung.4 Suchtalesmightworkgreat
harmto Antony'scauseby influencing the superstitious.
A similarpieceof propaganda maybe seen in PLUTARCH'S reportthatan Egyptian,
eitherto obligeCleopatraor speakingthe truth,told Antonythat his fortune,though
andgreat,wasobscured
brilliant bythatof Octavian. The soothsayer advisedhim,there-
fore,to keepas far as possiblefromOctavian, adding," for yourdaimonfearshis; and
althoughtit is spiritedand exaltedwhenit is by itself,it becomepoorerandless noble
whenhis is near." 5 I agreewith ROSEthatthis seemsto be pro-Octavian 6
propaganda.
Both sides, of course,did their utmostto win the favorof the troops. Antony
promisedto restorethe republictwo monthsafterhe shouldhavegainedthe victory,7
thoughhe cannothave beensincere. Besideshe sent gold in everydirectionin Italy
of Octavian's
in anattemptto shaketheallegiance men. AndOctavian, notto be outdone,
8
madeliberaldonationsto the soldiers.
Doubtlessthe speechesassignedby DIOto the leadersbeforeActiumcontainsomeof
1Dio, 1, 5. He addsthather favoriteoathwas 3 DIO,1, 6, 1.

by herintentionto dispensejusticeon the Capitol;the 4 Ant., Ix, 2-3.
storyis probably of Octavian's.HORACE,
a fabrication 5Ant.,xxxiii,2, andMoralia,319F- 320A.
Octavian
theopinion 6 TheDeparture in Annals
inEpode 11-16,reflects
ix,especially of Dionysus, of Archaeology
had inducedin the mindsof the Romansthat the war andAnthropology of theUniversity xi, 1924,
of Liverpool,
wasagainsta foreignwomanand her eunuchs,andthat 25-30.
Antonywas effeminateand enslavedby love. PRO- 7Oncemorewe findhim biddingfor the supportof
ii, 16,39-40,andiv, 6, 21-22,echoesthis official
PERTIUS, the republicans.
viewof the Caesarian party. 8 DIO,1, 7, 1-3.
2 1.
PLUTARCH,Ant., Ix,

OF 44-30 B. C. 45
the pointsactuallyset forthby the commanderson that occasion. Antonyis represented

as speaking after this fashion: Octavianwas a weakling, never himself victor in any im-
portant conflict. He had destroyedmany followersof Lepidusand Pompey,exacted
contributionsin Italy, seized and read his (Antony's) will, and was aiming at sovereign
power.1 Besideshe was tryingto set the Antoniansat variance.2
Octavian'sspeech is a repetitionof the grievanceshe had used beforeat Rome: the war
was againstan Oriental,againsta woman,to whomAntonywas enslavedandto whomhe
had given vastpossessionsof the Romanpeople. He citedAntony'sposingas Dionysus,3
his desertionof Octavia,his luxuryand effeminacy,his flight from Praaspa,his impiety, his
treachery,and finallyhe pointed out that Antony'ssoldierswere desertinghim daily.4
Doubtless there was considerableexaggerationof the enemy's faultson each side at Actium.
Afterthe battleof Actiumand the flightof Antony to Egypt the propagandacontinued.
Various stories about Actium have been correctly recognized by TARN5 as originating
in propaganda. In PLINY is this report about an echeneisor sucking-fish:fertur Actiaco
Marte tenuissepraetoriamnavemAntoniproperantiscircumireet exhortarisuos, donectransiret
in aliam.6 On this TARNmakesthe followingcomment: "The story preservedby PLINY,
then, represents an attempt by some one, in Antony's interest, to save Antony's face:
he was forced to transfer himself to another ship, not because of Cleopatra,but because
Fortune had interfered and had immobilised his flagship by means of the little creature
to whom the Greeks had for centuries attributed the mysteriouspower of so holding a
ship that neither wind nor oars could move her. The story must be very early; no one
was going to trouble about saving Antony's face once he was dead, and seemingly those
writers who were hostile to Augustus, like Aquilius Niger and Julius Saturninus,very
soon vanished from circulation. The fragmentthen is contemporary." 7
On the other hand Octavianwished to make certain featuresof the Actian campaign
of advantageto himself, so he exaggeratedthe affairat Actium through his literary men. 8
To their efforts must likewise be due the story that the land army, deserted by the com-
mander, remainedloyal to Antony for seven days after the battle. Of this episode TARN
remarks: " Kromayerrightly recognised that the story is untrue (the story was invented
to blackenAntony); they were merely negotiatingterms, and Canidius,who was loyal, left
them because he had to. The proof is that he went straight to Antony. "9
1 ID., 1, 20, 2-8. 4 Dio, 1, 24, 2-27,8; 28, 3; 20, 2-8; 28, 5.
2 ID., 1, 21. 6 "TheBattleofActium,"in J.R.S., xxi, 1931,173-199.
3 Ant., Ivi,4, andIvii, 1, whereAntony's 6 N. H., xxxii, 3.
Cf. PLUTARCH,
connectionwith and patronageof the Dionysiacartistsis 7
0,. cit., pp. 185-186.
stressed;cf. also JEANMAIRE,La PolitiqueReligieused'An- 8 Cf. TARN, op. cit., p. 196.
toineetdeCleopatre,
in Rev.Arch.,xix, 1924,pp. 241-261. 9 Op.cit.,p. 194. TARNaddsa propos of thedesertion
The excellentdiscussionof the religiouspropagandaof of the armyto Octavian:" No doubtOctavian's
propa-
the period by IMMISCH,in Aus RomsZeitwende,1931, gandahelped,andthe armyof the thirdtriumvir,Lepidus,
came into my hands too late to be used. had alreadyshown them the way."

46
46 KENNETH
KENNETHSCOTT
SCOTT
desertedAntonyat Actiumand triedherwiles

thatCleopatra
The reports,moreover,
- whoresistedthem- at Alexandria
on Octavian arebothuntrue. Of the latter,TARN
says, " The story then was written, not to vilify Cleopatra,but to glorify the continence
of Octavian(whose morals in reality were no better than Antony's); that is, it was some
"I
literary man s invention.
Antony, when at Alexandriahe had receiveddemandsfrom Octavian,remindedhim of
their formerfriendshipand kinship,defendedhis relationswithCleopatra,and"recountedthe
amourswhich they once had had togetherand their youthful wantoningtogether." 2 This
soundsverymuchlikea similarreplymadebyAntonyin theletterwhichis in partpreserved
3 Antony'sattemptat reconciliation
in SUETONIUS. failed,andsoontherewasan engagement
betweenthetroopsinEgyptin whichAntonyatfirstwona slightsuccess. Hethereupon was
encouraged,andhadpamphlets shotintoOctavian's camppromising thesoldiersfifteenhun-
dreddrachmae.4 All,however,provedinvain,andAntonyandCleopatra tooktheirownlives.
HORACE, afterthe downfallof Cleopatraand Antony,wroteof the queen"quidlibetim-
fortunaque
potenssperare dulciebria" andtoldhowOctavian reducedto realterrorshermind
"lymphatam Mareotico. " 5 As we haveseen,Octavian's waragainstCleopatra was really
againstAntony,and here in HORACE
everyRomanmust have seen the figureof the ebriusAn-
toniusbehindtheebriaregina.ThepoemfittedintothepicturewhichOctavian's propaganda
hadpainted,andthispropaganda leftits markon thewritersof theperiodin bothproseand
poetry. Antonyhadplayedthepartof Dionysussuccessfully in theEast,butfoundhimself
therebyexposedto chargesof Bacchicrevelryand drunkenness.As a result,justbefore
Actium,he hadwrittenwhatmusthavebeenintendedas a replyto Octavian's propaganda,
namely,a monograph entitledDe Sua Ebrietate in whichhe " triedto defendhimself."6
Fromthe materialabovepresented,and fromthe development of this investigation,
we may gather, I believe, additionalinformationto add to the ratherscant notices in the
historiesof LatinLiteraturewhichdeal with the politicalwritingof MarcusAntonius.
"
SCHANZ has the following: DerFlugschriftenlitteratur
musshierauchmit einigenWorten
Erwdhnung geschehen.In derbewegten ZeitderBurgerkriegestelltesichdasPamphlet,
das
nichtseltendieFormdesBriefeswdhlte,mitNotwendigkeit
ein. SelbstdermildeAugustus
sah
so z. B. denverleumderischen
sich hie and da gezwungen,Angriffenentgegenzutreten, Briefen
in denenAugustus
desAntonius, derThuriner "7
genanntwurde.
1 Op. cit., p. 197. 1911,553. TEUFFEL-SCHWABE, sec. 209, 3, merelyadds:
2 DIo, li, 8, 1. " Darauf [De Sua Ebrietate]sowieauf seinenBriefwechsel
3 mit Octavian(wovonProbenbei Sueton,z. B. Aug. 69),
Aug., Ixix, 2.
'DIO, li, 10, 2. beziehtsichOVID,ex. Pont.1, 1, 23: Antoniscriptale-
6 Carm.,i, 37. guntur. E. SCHELLE,de M. Antoniquaesupersunt epp.,
6 PLINY,N. H., xiv, 148; cf. SCOTr,"Octavian's Frankenb. i. S., 1883." The workof SCHELLE consists,
Propaganda andAntony's'De SuaEbrietate'", in C. P., as faras I candiscover,of ParsI, andgiveslittleinfor-
xxiv, 1929, 133ff. mationaboutthe attacksof AntonyuponOctavian.
7 Geschichteder rom.Litteratur,II Teil, 1 Halfte,

OF 44-30 B. C.
THE POLITICALPROPAGANDA 47
As we haveseen,theremusthavebeena considerable
amountof letter-writingbetween
andAntony. Octavianevidentlykepta file of all the letterswhichpassedbe-
Octavian
tells us that when Octavianheardof Antony's death he withdrew
tween them, for PLUTARCH
intohistent. "Then,takingthe lettersandcallinghis friends,he readthe lettersaloud,
showinghowreasonably andjustlyhe hadwritten,andhowcoarseandarrogant Antony
"1
had alwaysbeen in his replies. This collectionmusthavebeenpublished,perhaps
by Octavianin the samespiritwhich promptedhim to readthe letters to his friends, namely,
to justifyhis owncause. Theseepistles,however,seemto havebeenwrittenby way of
propaganda, andmanycopiesweredoubtlessin circulation.Norweretheyofficially
sup-
pressed, for OVID writes, " Antoni scripta leguntur." 2
TACITUSwas familiarwith the letters and the false chargescontained in them, for he
writes: "Antonii epistulae,Bruti contionesfalsa quidemin Augustumprobra,sed multa cum
acerbitatehabent. "3
SUETONIUS certainlyhad ANTONY'SEpistulaebeforehim, and he drewheavilyupon them
since they containedmuch materialfor a biographerwho was endeavoringto entertain his
reader. The charges which SUETONIUS mentions on the authorityof Antony are con-
cernedwith his paternal(Aug., ii, 3, and vii, 1) and maternal(iv, 2) ancestors,weaknessand
non-participationin the sea-fightbetween Naulochus and Mylae (xvi, 2); with the respon-
sibility for the continuanceof the triumvirateand failure to restorethe republic(xxviii, 1);
with having won adoption through shameful relationswith Julius Caesar(lxviii); with his
hasty marriagewith Livia and with wholesaleadultery(lxix, 1-2). These are all the accusa-
tions which SUETONIUS assigns to MarkAntony, but they show his frequentuse of Antony's
letters, and it is likely that other similaraccusationsmentionedby SUETONIUShave the same
source. In three of these cases (vii, 1 ; lxix, 2; lxx, 2), Antoniepistulaeare mentionedas the
source, but the other chargesprobably were also containedin the epistulae,though certain
of them may have been also published in edicta alone, or both in the epistulaeand in
the edicta.
In a letter to Hirtius and OctavianAntony called the latter a puer and said that he
owed everythingto a name [Caesar]. He also mentionedOctavian'sbriberyof the troops.
Manius read to the troops during the Perusine War a letter purportingto come from
Antony in which he said that his troops should fight if anyone assailed his dignity. Just
after the Perusine War there was evidently considerableinterchangeof letters between
Antony and Octavian, for Antony refers to his cvTtypacuL,Ta. Preceding the final war
Antony kept sending letters to Octavianand messages for the public consumption,while
Octavianalso wrotelettersand harangued
the peopleand Senate.
Antony,underattacksuponhimfordrunkeness, publishedjustbeforeActiuma mono-
1Ant., lxxviii,2. 3
Ann.,iv, 34.
2Ex Pont., i, 1, 23.

48
48 KENNETHSCOTT
graph "De Sua Ebrietate ", in whichhe daredto defendhimself. PerhapsOctavian

wrotein defenceof himselfad Antonium. 1 As we haveseen,Octavian wroteat leastone
epigramfor politicalpurposesand of a most scurrilous in whichhe taunted
character,
Fulvia. In laterlife Octavianevidentlykeptin mindthe chargesthat hadbeenbrought
againsthim and triedto answerthemin his Memoirs.
TwiceOctavianhaddocuments publiclyburned. Afterthe deposition of Lepidusin
36 B. C. he hadwritingsrelatingto the civil strifedestroyed. Did he includein these
lettersof Antony? I believethathe did not,but ratherburnedanonymous lampoonsor
handbills defaming hischaracter
orpolicies. The secondoccasionwasafterhisassumption
of the officeof PontifexMaximus,whenhe " collectedfromeveryside whateverprophetic
books of Greekor Latin originthere werein circulation, anonymously, or underthe
names of authorsof little repute,and burned over two thousandof them, retainingonly the
Sibyllinebooksandmakinga choiceevenamongthose."2 Did he this time, as before,
takeoccasionto destroydocuments
of politicalnature?
In generalOctavianapparentlytook the wise course of not attemptingthe impossible
all expression
taskof suppressing of opposition:"He did not evendreadthe defamatory
pamphletsabout himself which were scatteredin the senate-house,but took great pains to
refutethem;andnoteventryingto discover
theauthors,he merelyproposedthathereafter
those who publishedpamphletsor versesdefamatory of anyoneunderanother'sname
shouldbe calledto account.
" When he was attackedby scurrilousor spitefuljests of certainmen, he repliedto them
in an edict, but he vetoedthe makingof any regulationto checkfreedomof speechin wills. " 3
Eachleaderhad his staffof propagandists. On Antony'sside we find JULIUS SATUR-
NINUS,AQUILIUS NIGER,CASSIUS PARMENSIS, and ASINIUSPOLLIO. The first two, at least,
wrotein a tone hostileto Octavianto judgeby the single citationof each in SUETONIUS;
CASSIUShas been discussedat lengthabove;POLLIO wrote"contramaledictaAntonii."4
ANTONIUSmust have indulgedin written denunciationsas well as oral ones. There
LUCIUS
notesand verses,someof whichmayhavebeenwrittenby the obtrec-
wereanonymous
tatoresof thePerusineWar. CASSIUS andJUNIUS
PATAVINUS wroteagainstOctavian,
NOVATUS
thoughat whatperiodI cannotsay.
Octavianhad able friendsto defendhim or assailthe foe. CICERO,
in the period
before Mutina, had taken up the cudgels in his defence against Antony's charges. Mes-
salla wrote "de Antoniistatuis"and " contraAntoniilitteras";5 Octavian'sfriend,CAL-
Visius, made chargesagainstAntony which were perhaps, or rather, probably,written and
1 CHARISIUS,
Art. Gram. i, 129.
(ed. BARWICK), 6ID., Art. Gram., i, 104, and 129. Cf. SCHANZ,
2
SUETONIUS, Aug., xxxi, 1. op. cit., 553 and GARDTHAUSEN,Augustusund seineZeit,
8 ID., Aug., Iv-lvi, 1. pp. 344-345.
4 Art. Gram.(ed. Barwick),i, 80.
CHARISIUS,

THE POLITICAL
PROPAGANDA
OF 44-30B. C. 49
published. PLANCUS(and probably TITIUS, too) brought charges against Antony in the
Senate, and it is even probablethat they were later published in some form, since VEL-
LEIUSseems to have knowntheir nature. HORACE and PROPERTIUS representedthe interpre-
tation which Octavianhad placed upon Antony's relationswith Cleopatra. GAIUSOPPIUS,
a friendof Julius Caesar, publisheda work in reply to Antony's claim that Caesarionwas
the true son of Julius Caesar.
In the whole period from 44 to 30 B. C. we find both Octavianand Antony making
every effort in the strugglefor power. Public opinion had to be won, and every sort of
intriguewas to be used if there was any chance of its success. Spies, bribery, scurrility,
personalattacks,foreignanddomesticalliance,the disseminationof handbills in the enemy's
camp, promising rewards or defaming the foe, the falsificationor suppressionof reports
fromthe front, all bulk largein the politicsof the civil war that consumed the republic and
created the empire, phoenix-like, from the ashes. The manner in which nations were
roused to war and the methods by which they prosecuted it in the first century before
Christ differed very little from those of the twentieth century of our era.


The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B. C.

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B. C.

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B. C.

Author(s): Kenneth Scott

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

in 44 B. C. to the suicideof Antonyin Alexandria,

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

writing:"Soon Antonywlckedlybeganto pretendthathe hadbeen assailedby Octavian's

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

'Ad Fam.,xii, 23, 2. of Augustus.

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

1 Op.cit.,31; DIO,xlv, 12,2, saysthatOctavian

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

That the statement of SUETONIUSbelongs to this occasion we know from CICERO'S

16, 15. politicsthen,as today,to defamethe character

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

and had conductednow a perfumeryshop and now a bakeryat Aricia. CassiusParmensis,

1Phil., iii, 6, 15. ComptesRendusde l'Academiedes Inscriptionset Belles-

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

I am inclined to think that the epithet argentariuswas appliedby MarcusAntonius to

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

(" Postquambis ", etc.), designated by SUETONIUS

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

19, 22-23. omnianominidebes."

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

'Aug., xi. sii, 61, 4.

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

Octavianfledanddid not appearuntilthe next day,withouthis horseand his commander's

tioned courageon the battlefield.

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

mation "WhenMarcusLepidus,afterthe proscription

1 RANKIN 6 See for his general account of the proscriptions,

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

the proscription,was exploitedby Antonyat a later date. SUETONIUS,

Aug.,Ixxi,1. Ant.,xxii,4, andxxiii,1; Dio,xlvii,37,2-3; 41,3;

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

dure is so similarto the generalnature of Antony's slandersthat I am inclined to believe

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

Lucius Antonius accused Octavian to the troops of being treacherousto Marcus.3

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

resignhis part in the triumvirateand exchange"an unlawfulofficefor a lawfulone, a

1ID.,v, 30. 4xlviii,14,3-5.

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

himselfby an act of unnecessarybarbarity,if not impiety. The chargethat he had fo-

1GARDTHAUSEN, undseineZeit,iii, 3, 208-9,

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

1SUETONIUS,Aug., xvi, 2, and DIO,xlviii, 31. 2v, 77.

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

Of course Octavianhad just divorced Scribonia,and Tiberius, Livia. Still, in spite

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

authorwas CASSIUS OFPARMA. The chargeof impiety broughtagainstOctavianfor imper-

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

spreada reportthat Octavianat that time performedthese acts of magnanimity to bring

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

Romans and doubtless stimulated by Octavian,' Antony appearsto have propoundeda

This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:48:47 AM

suls of the year, Sosius and Domitius,preventedtheir publication,for in them Antony