Octavian

The visual devices used by Tony Blair and George Bush to get themselves elected and maintain power, come not from modern times, but a world that is thousands of years old. How Art Made the World ventures back to the creation of Stonehenge and the reign of Alexander the Great to reveal how imagery became an indispensable weapon in every leader's political armoury.

This episode explores how art can be used as a persuasion device by those in power and when did we learn to use images, to create a powerful icon or symbol, this way?

The use of art as a tool for those in power, started at different times, in different cultures. Near Stonehenge the grave of the Amesbury Archer was discovered in 2002, the grave was different to those previously found near the site, as this one was not Roman, but much earlier, dating to when the first sarsen stones were erected. What made him interesting were his gold hair tresses, possibly the oldest dated gold objects in Britain, and the fact that he was a foreigner, from the region that is now Germany / Switzerland. The archer had completed an epic journey for the time, and the treasures in his grave show a man of status. Art for personal adornment, like these hair clasps, elevated him above his peers.

As time progressed, art became a political tool, kings competed for more dazzling adornments. As kingdoms got bigger the kings had to overcome communication issues. Darius the Great of Persia, ruled over 20 nations from Persepolis. As very few people could read, Darius had stone reliefs created that combined styles from all over the empire, the carvings showed each nation bring tributes to their king. This showed respect, and the carvings communicated that Darius admired and respected his people. Darius created a symbol for himself, that of the archer, symbolic to Persians of leadership and wisdom, central to the concept of kingship. Darius embossed this symbol on gold coins, which became the currency to trade within the empire.

Darius’ conqueror, Alexander the Great, took this concept further. From an early age, Alexander’s image was being made for him. In his fathers tomb, an Ivory head recognisable as Alexander’s was found, showing that his image had been made for him in advance of him becoming king. In Pompeii, a copy of an original Macedonian painting, shows Alexander the Great, fearless, fixated on his enemy and leading from the front. He is in the midst of battle with king Darius, shown fearful and panicking. Where Darius had used a symbol to communicate his power, Alexander used his face. On defeating the Persians, Alexander melted down all their coins replacing them with coins bearing his head. Tests have shown that people are more influenced by the image of the head and this technique has endured 2500 years and still used today.

This artistic power can be used for sinister purposes, to persuade us to see things a certain way or even deceive us. The earliest known use of this dates back to the Romans. In 40BC Rome was in crisis, the city state was split between royalists and republicans. You could tell people’s political allegiance by how they dressed. Octavian (Augustus) understood the power of art and used it to his advantage. He needed to persuade his opponents ,and used artists to create a less threatening image, one that won over the republicans. Although the image showed him as a powerful general, it didn’t show any military arms, and his gestures were more about humility than power. His armour breast plates show him accepting surrender of the Parthian Empire, with the gods looking on approvingly. The statue offered reassurance, but it was all a lie. While he portrayed himself as a peace maker, he was getting rid of the opposition; while he was preaching humility, he lived like corrupt royalty and while pretending to hand power to the people he reinstated himself as a king.

The leaders of past used paint and marble, today we use digital manipulation. But as humans we still remain vulnerable to the persuasive power of art.

This examination of C. Duilius (consul in 260 BCE) and his achievements consists of a series of linked hypotheses, each suggested by direct evidence for Duilius' activities and contextualized by near-contemporary precedents (wherever possible) or relevant analogues from slightly later periods. Taken together, these hypotheses suggest that the elogium on Duilius’ rostral column may be read not only as an account of a capable commander who destroyed the myth of Carthaginian supremacy at sea, but also as an encomium on a generous benefactor to Rome’s citizenry. The inscription’s redactor successfully asserted Duilius’ preeminence among his peers, symbolized by the imagery and position of the rostral column commemorating his naval victory that was erected by order of the Senate and Roman people near the Comitium and Rostra. The cumulative evidence also suggests that the inscription’s reference to Duilius’ distribution of ‘naval booty’ to the Roman people involved the conversion of massive amounts of captured bronze, including the rostra removed from Punic ships, into “coinage,” i.e., the brick-sized aes signatum coins dated to c. 260 which bear naval imagery. Thus, by turning a mundane medium of exchange into a vehicle of propaganda through which his exploits and generosity could be ‘broadcast’, Duilius was able to reemphasize his new status as the first Roman celebrate a naval triumph. He could do this because the coins constituted a special triumphal/manubial issue under his authority, and he was therefore not subject to the constraints, real or implied, that kept Rome’s annual moneyers from issuing coins with personally significant types for another 125 years. His sudden emergence as a leading figure in Rome was rewarded with other honors, including a prestigious censorship in 258 and a perpetual personal honor, also bestowed by the SPQR, that allowed him to “triumph” to the end of his long life.

From the article's conclusion:
"Gaius Duilius has long been acknowledged as the first Roman to win a sea-battle, the first to celebrate a naval triumph, the first to be honored with a rostral column, and the first to present a gift derived from naval booty to the Roman people. Indeed, he came to be seen primarily as the man who set Rome on the road to maritime expansion and, ultimately, domination of the Mediterranean world. He was remembered also as the first (if not only) man to have a flute-player and wax-torch bearer accompany him home from feasts, as if he were perpetually triumphing. Now, we may add to Duilius’ list of firsts: he was the first politician to utilize Roman coinage to broadcast a new ideology of Rome’s (hoped for) naval greatness and dominance of the Mediterranean; he was also, it seems, the first Roman politician to use coinage as a medium for self-promotion, a century and a quarter before anyone would do it again."


Key words:

Gaius Duilius
Rostral Column
Naval Triumph
Naval Warfare
Battle of Mylae
Aes Signatum
Roman Navy
Roman Republic
Roman numismatics
Roman Topography
Punic Wars
First Punic War
Roman Epigraphy
Latin Epigraphy
Trireme
Quinquireme
Roman ships
Fasti Triumphales
Summi Viri
Octavian
Augustus
Forum Augustum / Augusti

La recente, importante edizione della stele di Cornelio Gallo a Philae, oltre a raggiungere conclusioni pressoché definitive su questioni specifiche suscitate dal prezioso monumento, sgombrando il campo da radicati pregiudizi, rinnova il dibattito mai interrotto sulle ragioni della disgrazia e della morte di Gallo, escludendo che nella stele vi siano tracce di suoi reati. Anche il riesame delle fonti e la considerazione della cronologia dei fatti permettono di escludere qualsiasi presenza nella stele e nelle sue iscrizioni di colpe di Gallo contro Ottaviano.

An "Alexandrian" encomiastic epigram in honor of Augustus (Supplementum Hellenisticum 982), "Aevum Antiquum" 11 (1998), 255-344

Contents:
1) Papyrological evidence. Hypothesis on the period and on the circumstances of the composition of the epigram. [The first known Greek epigram on papyrus with pentameters in eisthesis].
2) Epigram as Encomium and encomiastic ekphrasis. Possible epigraphical destination of SH 982.
3) Encomium as a hymn to the laudandus' divinity.
4) The Text.
5) August as a Zeus Eleutherios/Liberator: the Roman-Egyptian interpretation of the "Basileis soteres" Hellenistic tradition.
6) The Personification present in the epigram: a picture of the "Golden Age".
7) August as Nilotic ruler, bringer of Prosperity.
8) Iconography of the Augustean Apollo: the princeps and the elaboration of his own divine image.
9) Apollo "Actius" and Apollo "Leucadius".
10) Mutual influences of the Greek and Latin encomiastic poetry in the Augustan age: two different ways of expressing the same ideology.
11)  Appendix: the documentary texts of the tomos (P.Lond II 256 a, d, e) with translation and commentary.
12) Bibliography.

Scholars usually assert that Salvidienus Rufus and Marcus Agrippa, two brilliant generals of Octavianus, were aspiring to the same position in his circle and that only after the execution of Salvidienus Agrippa became the first commander of the young Caesar. But the investigation of careers of these two men from 44 till 40 BC shows that they shouldn’t be seen as totally comparable equals. Already in 43 BC their ways diverged, Agrippa and Salvidienus dealt with different tasks and none of them could be seen as a block on the way of the other. A grippa rapidly ascended the successive steps of the traditional Roman cursus honorum and his military activity was conjoined with the civil one. As for Salvidienus, he played the role of an “alternate”, very valuable and important one, of course, but his participation was usually needed in unforeseen or difficult cases and his activity was for the most part the military one. After Salvidienus’ execution Agrippa had to take additional responsibilities and to deal also with Salvidienus’ tasks. The widened competence invariably leads to the extension of influence, but it is hardly possible to assert that the execution of the “alternate” opened a gate for a man already steadily following the cursus honorum for several years.

In: Matera M., Karasiewicz-Szczypiorski R. (eds.). ŚWIATOWIT Supplement Series C: Pontica et Caucasica, vol. I. The Crimea and the Northern Black Sea Coast in Archaeological Research 1956–2013 / Krym i północne wybrzeża Morza Czarnego w badaniach archeologicznych 1956-2013. Warsaw: Institute of Archaeology University of Warsaw

"Janvier 27 avant n. è. : sur les décombres de la défunte République, Octavien/Auguste posait les fondations du Principat. À ses côtés, fidèle entre tous, Mécène, appelé à devenir l’archétype du patron littéraire. Depuis les guerres civiles, certains des poètes les plus en vue à Rome bénéficiaient de sa protection et de ses largesses. Il n’en fallut pas plus pour que le soupçon d’instrumentalisation naisse chez les Modernes. À rebours des théories classiques, l’auteur s’attache à démontrer que les poètes n’ont jamais eu à souffrir de ce compagnonnage. Non seulement le pouvoir naissant ne chercha pas à instrumentaliser leur talent afin d’asseoir le régime nouveau, mais ce sont bien plutôt les poètes qui prétendirent influencer ce dernier. Les liens entre la poésie et le politique dépassent toutefois la seule question de l’instrumentalisation. La période qui va de la fin de la République au début du Principat a été marquée par une vie littéraire florissante. Virgile, Horace, Properce, Tibulle, Ovide, d’autres encore, menèrent alors les lettres latines à leur apogée. Ils entendirent donner à la poésie latine la prééminence sur sa rivale grecque. Ils parachevaient là une dynamique apparue au tournant du milieu du Ier avant n. è. Chapeautés par leurs patroni, ils souhaitèrent associer Octavien/Auguste à ce mouvement. Loin d’avoir joué le rôle d’initiateur, le Princeps répondit à une attente pressante, sans éclipser pour autant le rôle des aristocrates dans le domaine littéraire. Au fil des pages, le livre dévoile les modalités de la vie littéraire à Rome dans un contexte politique singulier. Il met en cause l’existence des cercles littéraires tout en analysant l’intérêt des aristocrates comme Mécène, Messalla ou Pollion à protéger les poètes et les caractéristiques de ce patronage.

"

The matter at issue of this article is golden and silver coinage of Marcus Agrippa during his governorship in Gaul in 38 BC. Comparison of this coinage with contemporary Italian bronze coins shows that the main ideological motive was probably determined by Octavian, but its specific realization belonged to Agrippa. Caesar holds a special place on these coins and his connection with Octavian is stressed by combining the portrait of Caesar with the legend referring to his son, portraits of Caesar and Octavian face to face on the same obverse, Octavian’s beard, legend DIVI F, the title IMP, which was inherited by Octavian from Caesar. The image of the sidus Iulium above the forehead of Caesar, just as it was on his statue erected by Octavian in his honor, also appears for the first time on these very coins. A modest reverse bearing only the name of Marcus Agrippa and his title as COS DESIG serves as a foil to the importance of the obverse. This coinage had to remind the legionaries serving in Gaul that this province had been conquered by Caesar and that Octavian was his true heir. Besides, this coinage also served as a counterbalance to the coinage of Sextus Pompeius. Also coins of Agrippa would help to restore Octavian’s renown as a military leader, which had suffered damage in the war with Sextus Pompeius

After the Ides of March 44 BC Octavius goes to the political
scene, at 19 years old. We follow the story of the Βίος Καίσαρος written by Nicolaus of Damascus, witnessing the rise of the young Caesar, from his stay in Apollonia (on March 44) until his departure for Rome at the end of the same year. For the first time it is put in command of a large private army. The story of Nicolaus is very close to the facts; and though as a whole it is a eulogy of young, completes the story of complicated Year 44 in
the writings of Appian, Dio Cassius and the speeches and letters of Cicero.

When we read Virgil's famous epitaph, we automatically give the phrase Calabri rapuere a figurative meaning. Based on a contextual study of the words Calaber and rapere, as well as an examination of the rhythmic structure of the epitaph, this article argues that the phrase should be taken literally.

The article deals with the activity of Marcus Agrippa in 44-42 B.C.E., between the murder of Caesar and the battle of Philippi. In 44 he constantly stayed in contact with Octavian but did not stand out against the background of his retinue which was very hostile to the murderers of Caesar. Agrippa carried on the agitation for Octavian among veterans or soldiers, possibly in the Macedonian legions which subsequently deserted Antony. There are evidences in the sources about the participation of Agrippa in the war of Mutina, though he evidently did not took a position of command but was a member of Octavian’s stuff.  In 43 Agrippa accused Cassius under the lex Pedia and so came out of the shadow and began the independent political activity. The traditional view that Agrippa held tribunate  in 43 is unsupported by sources; his tribunate more probably should be dated 43 B.C.E.  It was a sign of a great faith on the part of Octavian since Agrippa was to protect the young Caesar’s interests in Rome while the latter departed to the war of Philippi. So in 43-42 B.C.E. Agrippa is active in political, not military sphere.

(also: Heldenschau). In Vergil's Aeneid, Anchises, like Aeneas, may be seen as a pattern of Augustus, as his survey of his progeny reflects Augustus' censorial activity (Augustus conducted his first census, without holding the office of censor, in 28 B.C.E.). This theory is supported by: verbal cues alluding to Rome’s topography and the location for the upper-class recognitio equitum; technical terms used to describe Anchises’ activity as he assesses his descendants; Anchises’ hortatory and monitory speech, similar to that of censors known from other literary works; and Vergil's choice of heroes to represent the Republic, most of whom were also censors or from families of censorial status.

Les prêtresses d'Artémis appartenaient sans surprise à des familles de notables locaux. Différents types de documents, dont un roman antique, permettent la reconstitution des tâches des prêtresses. Octavien-Auguste procéda à une importante réforme de l'Artémision. Le Mégabyxos/Mégabyze disparut au profit d'une prêtresse d'Artémis, qui à partir du règne de Claude fut une jeune fille. La réforme était typiquement augustéenne. Sous couvert de restaurer une situation de l'époque archaïque, elle introduisit également des nouveautés romaines.

The priestesses of Artemis belonged to families of local notables. Different types of documents, including an ancient novel, allow the reconstruction of the tasks of the priestesses. Octavian-Augustus made an important reform of the Artemision: the megabyxos disappeared to the profit of a priestess, who from the reign of Claude was a young teenager. The reform was of typically Augustan spirit: it wanted officially to restore the situation of the archaic time, but introduced also Roman innovations.

Le difficoltà e le contraddizioni tra le fonti sul processo di Gallo e le reazioni dei contemporanei alla sua morte lasciano intuire un clima politico difficile tra il 27 e il 26 a. C.: Ottaviano, dopo aver accettato un compromesso con il senato ed aver abbandonato Gallo, affrontò critiche e malumori degli amici e dei poeti. Per queste ragioni la sua propaganda cercò di deformare i fatti e minimizzare le sue colpe.

The difficulties and the contradictions among the sources on the trial of Cornelius Gallus, and the reactions of his contemporaries to his death hint at a difficult political climate in 27 / 26 b. C.: Octavian, after having abandoned Gallus to a compromise with the Senate, had to face criticism and resentment of his friends and of the poets. For these reasons his propaganda tried to distort the facts and minimize his faults.

The career of M. Licinius Crassus, son of Caecilia Metella and grandson of Crassus the triumvir, stopped suddenly after his military prowess in Macedonia. He is probably the last general of Rome having conquered the the spolia opima. He also brought back the standards taken from the Roman legions. n many ways he fits into a tradition of Republican "virtus" incompatible with the new order that Octavian wanted to impose. The conflict between the young noble and Octavian the same time allows to clarify the notion of spolia opima. It is clear that Augustus has manipulated the sources to adapt the rite of the spolia opima in order that his heirs have every opportunity to win these trophies. The feat of Crassus overshadowed the dynastic project of Octavian in the years 30-28 b.C..

In the last decades of the Roman Republic, Rome came very close to collapse. Augustus brought an end to the civil wars that were tearing the state apart. He did bring peace. But there are still many who see him as a monster and a tyrant. I see him as a product of his time. This paper is the first part of a 20,000+ examination of Octavian's early career following Caesar's assassination. The paper was a detailed examination of events in the two years (roughly) immediately after the assassination. In this work I seek to put Octavian, who would become Augustus, back into the context of his times.

The author examines the circumstances of the early youth of Octavian and Agrippa and the beginning of their friendship. Agrippa’s family was probably wealthy but its origin was quite humble, and Octavian’s lineage was not much higher; his ancestors, except his grandmother Julia, belonged to Italian municipal families. It appears that Agrippa met Octavian in the house of the latter’s stepfather Philippus, and in the same house Agrippa’s brother made acquaintance with Cato, the son-in-law of Phillipus. Agrippa was educated together with Octavian and by 46 B.C. became his best friend. Probably they were going to participate together in Spanish war under Caesar but Agrippa had to go to Spain alone due to the illness of Octavian (and this might be his first military service) and his friend joined him later. Also Caesar planned to take both youths with him to his Parthian campain. So by 44 B.C. Octavian and Agrippa were united by close friendship, common experience and common plans for the future.

As explained in the earlier parts of this work, I have always seen Augustus as a product of his time. In this final part of my 20,000+ examination of Augustus’ early career I look first at how, and why, Mark Antony repeatedly sought to impede Octavian’s early moves to have his adoption by Caesar recognised, and to claim his inheritance.  I consider the problems this caused for both Octavian and Antony, and how the cycle of reconciliations and rifts drove Octavian to side with Cicero and the conservative factions in the Senate.  In this, I look at both the political and other inducements offered by the Senate to win Octavian to their side, and the way the conservatives then attempted to recant their promises after the battle that saw Antony defeated and the consuls Hirtius and Pansa dead on the field, leaving Octavian in sole command of the conservative factions army.
These last betrayals were what pushed Octavian, now much better placed politically and militarily, back towards the Caesarian faction and the foundation of the Second Triumvirate.
I should also note that a great part of this paper is taken up with resolving the confused chronology of Appian’s account, through careful use of corroborating evidence from Cicero’s letters from that time.  This section covers events from April to October 44.  I have made some significant restructuring of this section prior to publication here.
The last part of my paper was rather rushed, simply because – when I originally wrote it – I was running out of time.  The key events are covered, albeit briefly.

The author calls in question the theory prevailing in historiography according to which the result of Octavian’s marriage to Livia was his with the Republican nobility, the Claudii and the Livii above all. The marriage was accompanied by a great scandal and would alienate the conservative aristocracy. There is no Roman noble whose support of Octavian can be connected with his marriage to Livia.

Poetry thrives on hyperboles. And when it comes to express the idea of an indelible stain, what hyperbole would be more powerful than the inability of the "old Ocean" itself, with all its mass, to overcome such a blot? No wonder then if poets use this image, from Lucretius (De Rerum Natura, 1076 ff.: about purple) through Shakespeare (Macbeth) to Lautréamont (Poésie I): "Toute l'eau de la mer ne suffirait pas à laver une tache de sang intellectuelle."1 But the reader interested in cacozelia latens2 will bring special attention to Catullus's Poem 88, insofar as its use by Virgil gives us a brilliant example of the way the proponents of this particular kind of "double writing" collaborated between them, even beyond the grave. In that Poem, Catullus fustigates the depravities of a certain Gellius:

Cet article reconsidère quelques points de contact entre les romans en moyen anglais à rime caudale Octavian (dans ses rédactions septentrionale et méridionale) et Le bone Florence of Rome préservés dans des manuscrits du XVe siècle. Une analyse de leurs relations littéraires et textuelles ainsi qu’un regard comparatif sur leurs sources françaises et les remaniements de celles-ci permet d’entrevoir les traces d’un cycle épique qui pouvait exister en Angleterre à une époque antérieure aux témoins que nous possédons.

This article reconsiders several points of contact between the Middle English tail-rhyme romances Octavian (in its northern as well as its southern versions) and Le Bone Florence of Rome, which survive in fifteenth-century manuscripts. By analysing their literary and textual relations and comparing them with their French sources and the latter’s adaptations, it offers a glimpse of an epic cycle that may have existed in England in a period predating the witnesses that have come down to us.

Abstract of a conference about the official mission of P. Vedius Pollio, a knight friend of Octavius, who took some financial decisions about sanctuaries in the province of Asia as prefect or first procurator of Octavien in Asia. He was a political and financial actor in crucial years between Republic and Empire.

The author argues that the political consequences of Octavian's marriage to Livia were only negative for him. Having divorced Scribonia he displayed his hostile disposition to Sextus Pompey too early and did not have enough time to prepare himself to the new war which led to his defeat in 38 BC. The scandal about Octavian's marriage to Livia must have alienated the conservative aristocracy rather than attract it; the episode gave a lot of material for the hostile propaganda.