We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
‘Ivravit in mea uerba tota Italia sponte sua et me belli quo uici ad Actium ducem depoposcit.’ In these words the Emperor Augustus clearly meant to suggest that the war in which he got rid of Mark Antony was none of his making, but was imposed upon him by the free and self-determined action of the Italian nation. Modern historians have unanimously refused to regard Augustus as a passive instrument in the hands of the Roman people at large; yet they have generally accepted his account of the oath-taking of 32 B.C. as the outcome of a spontaneous burst of enthusiasm in his behalf, which they interpret as the reflex result of the nation's resentment against Antony's un-Roman and treasonable behaviour.
page 230 note 1 Monumentum Ancyranum,ch. 25.Google Scholar
page 230 note 2 Ihne,Römische Geschichte, VIII. p.366Google Scholar; Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, I. p. 127Google Scholar; Gardthausen, Augustus, I. p. 364Google Scholar; Kromayer,Die rechtliche Begründung des Principats, p. 15.Google Scholar
page 230 note 3 Romisches Staatsrecht, I3, pp. 696–697.Google Scholar
page 230 note 4 Greatness and Decline of Rome (Engl. transl.), IV. p. 84 and n.Google Scholar
page 230 note 5 An assertion in ch. 3, ‘ uictor omnibus super stitibus ciuibus peperci,’ is directly refuted by Suetonius, Diuus Augustus, chs. 13, 15, 17, 27. In ch. 1, ‘ rem publicam factione paucorum oppressam in libertatem uindicaui’ is a highly deceptive way of describing the establishment of the triumvirate.
page 230 note 6 The nearest corroborative statement is found in Cassius Dio, 50. 4. §§ 1–3; but here it is merely related that public opinion eventually became incensed against Antony, which is very far from saying that Italy took the initiative in calling Octavian to arms. The panegyrics showered upon Octavian after Actium cannot be safely quoted as evidence for the previous state of feeling in Italy.
page 231 note 1 The spirit in which the incriminating stories of Antony's un-Roman conduct were received in Rome is well illustrated in Velleius Paterculus (II. 83. 3), Cassius Dio (50. 2. §§ 3–6), and Phitarch (Antoniusch. 57 fin., 59 init.). Particular significance attaches to the memorable sitting of for fear he should thereby ruin many deserving the Senate on January 1, 32, in which the consuls all but carried a motion against Octavian (Cassius Dio, loc. cit.), and to the apparently misplaced pity which the Romans felt for Antony on hearing how he had divorced Octavia (Plutarch, ch. 57 fin.). Ferrero aptly quotes Horace's striking appeal to the triumvirs, ‘quo, quo scelesti ruitis?’ (Epode 7), which may safely be attributed to the period 32–31 B.C.Google Scholar
page 231 note 2 Cassius Dio50. 7. 3;9. 1.Google Scholar
page 231 note 3 Op. cit., p. 85. Cassius Dio (50. 4, § 3) suggests that Octavian did not outlaw Antony for fear he should thereby ruin many deserving Romans who happened at the time to be in Antony's camp;but he refutes himself by going on to relate that the case of Antony's friends was met by means of a special decree which promised indemnity to deserters from his side.Google Scholar
page 231 note 4 Plutarch, Antonius, ch. 58 init.Google Scholar; Cassius Dio 50. 10, §§ 3–4.Google Scholar
page 231 note 5 Cassius Dio, 50. n,§ 5.Google Scholar
page 232 note 1 The number given by Pliny on the authority of Augustus is 430 (Hist. Nat. III. § 46 sqq.).Google Scholar
page 232 note 2 The federation of discontented Italians which caused the outbreak of the Social War of 91–88 B.C. seems to have dispatched business with fair rapidity. But the area covered by the insurgents was far less than the tota Italia of the Monumentum Ancyranum.Google Scholar
page 232 note 3 Loc. cit.Google Scholar
page 232 note 4 If Octavian could be conceived after the lapse of the triumvirate as retaining the pro consular imperium inherent in his triumviral powers so long as he received no successor to take charge of his army and himself remained outside the pomerium, this imperium had been forfeited by his entry into Rome in rhe early part of 32 B.C. (Kromayer, op. cit., pp. 8, 9.)Google Scholar
page 232 note 5 Diults Augustus, ch. 17.Google Scholar
page 233 note 1 50. 3, § 4.Google Scholar
page 233 note 2 For the dating, see Kromayer, Hermes, 33, pp. 44–5Google Scholar
page 233 note 3 Op. cit., pp. 79 and 84 n.Google Scholar
page 233 note 4 Cassius Di. 50. 2, § 6.Google Scholar
page 233 note 5 Op. cit., p 7 n.Google Scholar
page 234 note 1 Op. cit., p. 84.Google Scholar
page 234 note 2 Cassius Di. 50. 9, §§ 2–3.Google Scholar
page 234 note 3 Kromayer, , Hermes, vol. xxxiii., pp. 28–30.Google Scholar
page 235 note 1 Cassius Dio, 50. 2, §§ 4–5.Google Scholar
page 235 note 2 Cassius Dio, 50. 10, § 3, implies that theagitation had not entirely died down even in 31 B.C.Google Scholar
page 235 note 3 In 43 B.C. (after Mutina) and in 40 B.C. (at the siege of Brundisium).Google Scholar
