Dio and Plutarch on the damnatio of AntonyAuthor(s): Charles L. BabcockReviewed work(s):Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Jan., 1962), pp. 30-32Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/266823 .Accessed: 07/11/2012 09:22

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toClassical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

30 NOTES AND DIscUSSIONS

charges against Theodosius. Many others still remain, but the recent unfavorable verdict on the Emperor, in its seeming psychological inconsistency (uncomfort- ably similar to the long since exploded traditional view of Gallienus), may well

cause some hesitancy before one agrees that Theodosius' only title to "Great- ness" lies in his resolute, not to- say bigoted, orthodoxy.

STEWART IRVIN OOST

UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

NOTES

1. Claud. Gild. 153-55 (12 years before 397): cf. P. Ro- manelli, Storia delle province romane dell' Africa (Rome, 1959), p. 605; E. Demougeot, De l'unite a la division de l'Empire romnain (395-410) (Paris, 1951), p. 173 and n. 288; E. Stein, Geschichte des spdtrdtnischen Reiches, I (Vienna, 1928), 315; 0. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, V (Berlin, 1913), 282; idens, s. v. "Gildo," RE, VII (1912), 1360-63, at 1360; T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, I: 22 (Oxford, 1892), 665; A. C. Pallu de Lessert, Vicaires et cointes d'Afrique (de Diocletien a l'in- vasion vandale) (Constantine, 1892), p. 107.

2. CIL, VIII, 23968, 11025 (= 27 = ILS, 787), 22076; possibly Ann. ep., 1957, No. 311 (it is not certain which Mauretaniia is mentioned in this document; if Tingitana, that belonged to tbe diocese of Spain, cf. Ro- manelli, op. cit., pp. 502, 508; although Claud. Gild. 160 seems to mean that G. held Tingitana too, at least at the time of his flnal revolt. This may be anere rhetoric, or he may have occupied it at that time.); Pac. (12) Pan. 38. 2; L. Mitteis. Griechische Urkunden der Papyrus- satnmlung zu Leipzig, I (Leipzig, 1906), No. 63, pp. 198-99.

3. Stein, Gesch., 1, 310-11, 316; Seeck, Untergang, V, 209 519; Romanelli, op. cit., p. 607.

4. Stein, Gesch., I, 320. 5. ILS, 786 (name of Valentinians [II] erased); Claud.

Gild. 241-52; Sex. Cons. Hon. 108-10; Sym. Ep. 6. 1; perhaps Carin. [cont. pag.] 78-79, 85-86 (Riese, Ant. Lat., I: 1, 23).

6. Romanelli (p. 607), for example, is at a loss to understand how Theodosius can have pardoned Gildo for his adherence to Maximus. My attention was orig- inally drawn to this problem by the account in R.'s excellenit book.

7. N. lI. Baynes, CMedH, I, 60. Perblaps A. Piganiol, L'Emtnpire chrHtien (325-395) (Paris, 1947), p. 253, means to hint at sometling similar when lie speaks of a secret accord between Gildo and Theodosius in 387/8.

8. Piganiol, op. cit., p. 271. 9. Hier. Ep. 79. 2, 123. 18; Pallad. Dial. ,S. J. Chrys. 10

(Migne, PG, XLVII, 35); Seeck, s. v. "Flaccilla" (3), RE, VI (1909), 2431-33, at 2432.

10. Nor would the arts of the courtier be (leterred by the fact that Theodosius for a short time had himself recognized Maximus as ruler of the Gaiuls; cf. Stein, Gesch., I, 312, following Seeck, Untergang, V, 197.

11. Claud. Gild. 253-55. Sym. Ep. 4. 5. 2-3 (cf. 6. 12. 4, 8. 65) shows he cut off the annona of Rome in the time of Honoritus. Jerome, on this view it is true, is not speaking with literal accuracy, for Africa by joining Maximus was revolting against Valentinian II, legitimate Emperor in the West, not against Theodositus. But the same objection would be true if the reference were understood to be to the rebellion of Eugenius, for sip to that time Africa was still techlnically in the splhere of Valentinian. The latter, anmiable and ineffectual, was senior as Auigustuis to Theo- dosilns (cf., e. g., such inscriptions as ILS, 785, 786), but after the death of Gratian there can be no doubt, on al- most any interpretation of his personality, that Theo- (losius was the predoominant partner.

12. In RE, VII (1912), 1360, Seeck put the marriage at this juncture, but in Unterganq, V, 554, he changed his mind and put it in connection with the rebellion of Eugeniuis (cf. idemt, s. v. "Salvina," RE, IA: 2 [1920], 2021) on the basis of the nlilitary preparations attested for 388 by the Egyptian papyrus (see n. 13).

13. Mitteis, Ur-kunden ... Leipzig, I, No. 63. pp. 198-99. 14. The silence of Claudian also nlilitates against the

hypothesis that Theodosius had the secret understanding with Gildo intimated by Piganiol (p. 253). For if that understanding were secret, Claudian out of ignorance or malice might well be expected to denounce the apparent loyalty of Gildo to Maximus at the time. And he presum- ably had ample evidence of the adherence of Africa to Maximus in 387/8 (above, n. 2).

15. Query: Did Theodosius make him swear a special oath of loyalty (cf. Claud. Sex. Cons. Hon. 110) ?

16. At some timne prior to 30 Dec. 393 (C. Th. 9. 7. 9), Gildo was elevated to the rank of Magister utriusque mlilitiae in Africa, a rank ordinarily not found in that diocese. He might have held this position from tlle beginining, both because of the necessity of winning back the diocese for Theo(losiuis (on this hypothesis) and because lhe was the father-ill-law of the Emperor's nephew; cf. Seeck, RE, VII, 1360; Stein, (Gesch., I, 328 (marriage in 392-94). If these scholars are right in connecting tthe rank of niagister with Salvina's marriage, then ex hypothesi the award of the rank also belongs to ca. 387/8.

17. Stein, Gesch.. I, 328, n. 3; also Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser untd Pdpste (Stuttgart, 1919), pp. 281-83.

DIO AND PLUTARCH ON THE DAMNATIO OF ANTONY

A passage in Dio (51. 19) and two in Plutarch (Cic. 49, Ant. 86) have long been cited as evidence for dating the damnatio memoriae of Antony. Borghesi called attention to them in 1818 in establishing his criterion for the dating of the Capitoline fasti.1 Subsequent scholars

have regularly used the two authors in discussing Antony's overthrow, and in particular A. Degrassi, latest editor of the fasti, found in these passages a ter- minus ante quem for the initial inscribing of the lists.2 Examination of the texts cited, however, reveals that Dio and

NOTES AND DiscUSSIONS 31

Plutarch do not -agree in regard to one important chronological detail, the timing of the decree against Antony.

In the last paragraph of his life of Cicero (49. 4),3 Plutarch states quite clearly that the decree against Antony was voted during the consulship of Cicero's son (13 September-I November 30), whom Octavian chose as his colleague after de- feating Antony.4 On the other hand, Dio's chronology (51. 19. 1-5) is somewhat differ- ent and suggests that the attack against Antony's honors and statues occurred not in 30, i-n Cicero's consulship, but rather at the first news of the defeat at Actium. The chapter begins ('Ev 8? toUTZc xoc'

?Tl npoT?pov) with a statement inclusive of the time from the announcement of the outcome at Actium through the winter of 30/29, which Octavian spent in Asia dealing with the Parthians and Roman interests in that area. Note then the decrees honoring Actium: the triumph over Cleopatra, arches at Brundisium and at Rome, the assignment of the beaks of the captured ships to the temple of Divus Julius, the establishment of games and birthday and victory holidays in honor of Octavian, plans for a mass exodus to meet the victor returning to the city, and other measures "unnecessary to men- tion." Summarizing this reaction to Ac- tium, Dio continues: 76 p?ev oU'v npW6-q?v ?xelv Ire TOC5T 4WtapxV-0, xoct roc ro5 'Avrcovou

xoa0v%tinc0 -& p?v x0cxOe)ov 8' &C?)LeV, '-cv

e ?lepXv VV f eyeyeVV-\TO0 0LLXpov evQLLaxV, QXLt

ro rou MOCpxou 7rp6apGP,%0C &7WrOv ?1 T&V o-uyy?v&v ocU'-oU5 eVcLv. Then, and the sequence is significant- '

0LeVOt xoct TOve&rxm owro6v

t'Oov-ro ( yy'),70 8' roU5-o KLX6p&vo -OU e7ru 9 L8 \ ?? TOU ?0sUTUMO KtxC6pC0vo4 7ML80q4 VV 116Pet rO~5 C"OUq U7r0V7CU0o4

-additional honors were voted to Octa- vian; but no further decrees against Antony are mentioned, although Dio com-

ments that in the triumphal honors for Octavian the names of Antony and the other Romans were properly not mentioned.

Thus it would seem that Dio's infor- mation led him to believe' that the arch and the decrees -against Antony, effec- tively his damnatio memoriae, were almost simultaneous parts of the Senate's re- sponse to the initial news of Actium.5

Plutarch here seems less trustworthy for reasons of dramatic structure. He is con- cluding his life of Cicero with two care- fully chosen anecdotes: the first concerns Augustus and his grandson with the book of Cicero; the second, an ironic twist with which to end the life, reveals that Cicero's son was consul when his old enemy was overthrown and condemned. The moral that Plutarch draws was undoubtedly a commonplace. The detail he employs was perhaps suggested to him by his under- standing that the news of Antony's death reached Rome during the younger Cicero's consulship; he opined that this would be the normal time to effect the damnatio memoriae. Dio also reflects the moral judgment, but with different (and I think more accurate) chronology. The condem- nation of Antony was already in effect when, in the young Cicero's consulship, his death was reported. That Dio is silent about further decrees in a fully detailed account indicates that none were necessary. The Senate had treated the loser at Actium in a manner commonly reserved for an enemy who had been destroyed. When Antony died at Alexandria, his monuments at Rome had already been defaced, and there remained for the younger Cicero only the satisfaction of announcing to the city the triumvir's death.

CHARLES L. BABCOCK

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOTES 1. B. Borghesi, Oeuvre.s completes, IX (Paris, 1893), 6ff.

Borghesi referred the erasure of the names of M. Antonius thc orator and his grandson the triumvir in the Capitoline lasti and the jasti Colotiani to the posthumous condem- nation of Antony in 30 B.C.

2. Degrassi's edition of all extant or manuscript fasti consulares et triumphales forms Vol. XIII of Inscriptiones

Italiae (Rome, 1947). See particularly fasc. 1, pp. 19-20. The problem of the dating and location of the Capitoline fasti has been the subject of considerable discussion in print by Degrassi and L. R. Taylor. For a convenient summary of their points see Ruth Stiehl, Die Datierung der Kapitolinischen Fasten (Tubingen, 1957), chap. i. A recent survey of the excavations in the Forum by Gambe-

32 NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS

rini Mongenet, which have particular significance in the controversy over the identification of the Actian and Par- thian arches of Augustus, appears in B. Andreae's "Archao- logische Funde und Grabungen im Bereich der Soprin- teisdenzen von Rom 1949-1956/7," AA, 1957 (Berlin, 1958), pp. 110-350, esp. 150-54 and pls. 13-18.

3. The second Plutarch passage, Ant. 86. 5, seems to refer to the pulling down of Antoiiy's statues in Alexandria immediately after his death, its point being that a friend of Cleopatra paid Octavian to assure that her statues would not suiffer the same fate. Since Antony's statties could scarcely have been molested at Alexandria before this time, there is no chronological aid in this passage.

4. Octavian was consul IV in 30 with four colleagues, of whiom the younger Cicero was the third and entered office on 13 September (cf. Degrassi, op. cit. [n. 21, pp. 510-11). Plutarch apparently means that soni-etinme after Actium (perhaps while Octavian was at Brundisium) Cicero was nominated for one of the consulships of 30. It would hardly be possible to understand the defeat men- ioned as that of Alexandria, wliicli Octavian entered

1 August 30; in this case the nomination would have reached Rome with or after the news of Antony's death. We know little about such nominations, although practice in the earlier 30's suggests that the list might well have been made up for several years in advance, par- ticularly since Octavian was leaving Rome for possibly extended campaigns. Certainly well before 31 relations between Antony and Octavian were adequately strained to give the latter no pause in advancing Cicero's son, who probably had already received a priesthood. Cf. T. R. S. Brouighton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, II (New York, 1952), 426, and Martha H. Lewis, The Official Priests of Romine under the Julio-Claudians (Rome, 1955), pp. 82-83.

5. T. Rice Holmes in his Architect of the Roman Emiipire, I (Oxford, 1928), 170-71, follows Dio's version almost phrase by phrase, but omits any reference to Cicero's son. The present chronological correction adds another bit of evidence to Miss Taylor's contention that the Capitoline fasti were first inscribed on the Parthian arch (cf. Dio 54. 8. 3).

THE LEGIONARY COMMAND OF SALVIUS LIBERALIS

An inscription (CIL, IX, 5533 = ILS, 1011), found at Urbs Salvia in Picenum, gives, in descending order, the cursus ho- norum of C. Salvius Liberalis Nonius Bassus. After having been adlected into the senate by Vespasian and Titus, first with tribunician rank, then with prae- torian rank, and after having become /rater arualis, he was, in turn, legatus le- gionis V Macedonicae, legatus Augustorum [iuridi]c(us) Britann(iae), proconsul prouin- [ciae Ma]cedoniae, and finally consul. The Augusti ruling while he was in Brit- ain have been identified as Titus and Domitian;' it is more likely, however, that they are Vespasian and Titus. Liberalis became a frater arualis on 1 March 78 (CIL, VI, 2056. 22-25) and took part in the ceremonies in May of the same year (CIL, VI, 32362). He is not mentioned in the Acta Arualium in the year 80, and in 81 not until September; the Acta Arualium prove that he was in Rome on 30 September 81 (CIL, VI, 2060. 33-38; cf. CIL, VI, 32364). Between May 78 and 30 September 81 he held two posts: the command of the legio V Macedonica, stationed at the time in Moesia,2 and the post as legatus Augustorum [iuridi]c(us) Britann(iae). Titus had died on 13 Sep- tember 81 and Domitian had taken over the rule on the next day.3 It follows that

Domitian cannot be included in the term Augustorum, as the following consider- ations will show. If Liberalis had been appointed by Titus and continued in Britain as Domitian's official, one may assume that a courier must have been sent to Britain to confirm Liberalis' tenure, that a second courier must have been sent to recall Liberalis, and that Liberalis himself must have returned to Rome; yet all these journeys certainly cannot have taken place in the seventeen days be- tween Domitian's accession to the throne on 14 September 81 and Liberalis' pres- ence in Rome on 30 September. On the other hand, while in general the term of a provincial governor came to an end when his successor arrived (Cass. Dio 53. 15. 6), and while the same was in general true for the term of any other provincial official, one may assume that Domitian sent merely a single courier to Britain to recall Liberalis; but even on this assumption the seventeen days are still not sufficient to allow the courier to arrive in Britain and Liberalis to return to Rome, and, what is crucial, in this case Liberalis could not call himself Domitian's legatus. Therefore, the Augusti in our inscription must be Vespasian and Titus.4 Liberalis consequently was iuri- dicus on 24 June 79, the day of Titus'