AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

MONOGRAPH SERIES

Ludwig Koenen, Editor

NUMBER 34
FROM REPUBLIC TO PRINCIPATE:
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON
CASSIUS Bl&S ROMAN HISTORY
BOOKS 49-52 (36-29 B.C.)
By Meyer Reinhold
FROM REPUBLIC TO E M i C i P ^
AN fflSTORICAL COMMENTARY
ON
CASSIUS DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY
BOOKS 49-52 (36-29 B.C.)

By Meyer Reinhold

Scholars Press,
Atlanta, Georgia
 AN HIS im

CASSIUS QI045

General Editors: P.M. Swan and J.W-

i

V^LUJIE 6

BOOKS 49-52
(36-29 B.C.)
By Meyer Reinhold

Trstt:
 FROM REPUBLIC TO FRTNCTPATE:
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON
CASSIUS DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY
BOOKS 49-52 (36-29 B.C.)
By Meyer Reinhold

1988
American Philological Association

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Reinhold, Meyer, 1909-

From republic to principate
(Dio Project ; vol. 6) (Philological monographs of the American Philological
Association ; no. 34) .
Includes bibliographies
1. Cassius Dio Cocceianus. Historia romana. 2. RomeHistoryCivil War,
43-31 B.C.Historiography. 3. RomeHistoryAugustus, 30 B.C.4 A.D.
Historiography. \ ^
I. American Philological Association. 4II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series :
Philological monographs ; no. 34.
DG207.C373R45 1987 937'. 06 87-9498
ISBN 1-55540-112-0
ISBN 1-55540-246-1 (pbl() \
 FROM REPUBLIC TO PRWCIPATE:
AN HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON
CASSIUS DIO'S ROMAN HISTORY
BOOKS 49-52 (36-29 B.C.)
By Meyer Reinhold

1988
American Philological Association

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Reinhold, Meyer, 1909-

From republic to principate
(Dio Project"; vol. 6) (Philological monographs of the American Philological
Association ; no. 34)
Includes bibliographies
1. Cassius Dio Cocceianus. Historia romana. 2. RomeHistoryCivil War,
43-31 B.C.Historiography. 3. RomeHistoryAugustus, 30 B.C.14 A.D.
Historiography. \ . ^
I. American Philological Association. 4II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series :
Philological monographs ; no. 34.
DG207.C373R45 1987 937'.06 87-9498
ISBN 1-55-540-112-0
ISBN 1-55540-246-1 (pbl()
To the memory of Sir Moses I. Finley
meorum prime sodalium
 CONTENTS

Series Preface .......ij

Preface to Volume 6 xiii

Bibliography and Abbreviations ...... .j.....;....>.....,.,......,..xv

Dio's Life and Career ........>..;....*........,...,.,... 1

Introduction to Books 49-52 5

Dio's Sources for Books 49-52 6
Dio's Methods and Style............... . ....................9
On the Date of Composition of Books 49-52....................y............i..,ll
Dio and Augustus....................^.^.............i:.^..V.i..w....^....^...v..;....12
Dkrahd me Third Century... i..............:. 14

Commentary
Book 49 ...............: 17
Book 50 ... ......83
Book 51 J"..: ; U... ... v . ..117
Book 52 i . . . H. 165

Appendixes 215
1. "Human Nature" in Dio ., 215
2. Duration of the Operations Against Sextus
Pompey in 36 B.C. ..............217
3. The Date in 37 B.C. of the Capture of Jerusalem .. 218
4. Ventidius' Command in the East (49.19.1-22.1) ...219
5. Ventidius' Triumphal Oration ....r.rt22ft
6. On the Marriage of Antony and Cleopatra 22
7. The Propaganda War of 32-31 B.C ...222
VI H CONTENTS

8. The Officia] Termination ofthe Triumvirate.............. ,,........,.224

9. Tfie^Actian Era '. *.' -22*5
10. The Actian Games - - 226
11. Roman Attitudes Towards Egyptians.. I....227
12. TbeBoute of Alexandria (51.17.2-3) 228
13. The Tribunician Power of Augustus (51.19.6-7) 229
14. The "Vote of Athena" (51.19.7) 230
15. The Beginning of Augustus' Rule. 231
16. On the Praenomen"Imperator" (52.41.3-4)., ......231
17 The Economic Burden of Athletes' Pensions (52.30.4-6) , 233
Notes to the Appendixes 234

Maps .... .N. 241

L The War Against Sextos Pompey, 36 B.C 241
2. The Eastern Frontier, 39-29 B.C , 242
3. * Octavian's Illyrian Campaigns, 35-33 B.C ..... ; ......243
4. The Theatre of Actium, 31 B.C. 244
5. Crassus'Campaigns in the Balkans 245

Indexes... 247
1. Disputed Readings 247
2. Discussions of Selected Passages From Other Sources 247
3. Greek Words^.. 248
4. Persons, Placesfcand Institutions 248
 SERIES PREFACE

It was in the nature of the cosmopolitan age of the Severan emperors that
Cassius Dio Cocceianus, a Greek from Nicaea in Bithynia, should twice be
consul in Rome; equally so that he should write, in Atticizing Greek yet in the
form of Roman annals and from the perspective of a Roman senator, a history of
Rome from its mythical beginnings down to A.Q. 229, the year of his
retirement. The eighty-Book Roman History, though sadly reduced in the wreck
of ancient literature, casts a vivid light on Dio's own 4ge "of jrust and iron,"
which ushered in a century of momentous change in the ancient world and the
history of mankind. It is also an indispensable source of dur knowledge of
preceding periods of Roman history and a major document of iGraeco-Roman
historiography.
Although selected books of Dio have found commentators in this century,1
for a commentary addressing the whole History one must resort to the admirable
edition of Hermann Samuel Reimar (1694-1768), published 1750-1752 in
Hamburg.2 (The^commentary ore Dio to which F. W. Sturz devoted Volumes 5-
6 of his edition [Leipzig, 1824-1825] is essentially a reprint of Reimar,
supplemented by Sturz with his own and other scholars' notes.3) Even in
Reimar's commentary a good deal is by the hands of predecessors. He took over
notes of Fulvio Orsini (Ursinus) (1582), Joannes Leunclavius (1592), and Henri
de Valois (Valesius) (1634) on the fragments of Books 1-35,4 Most of the notes

i ! i - .
1
E.g., H.T.F. Duckworth on Book 53 (Toronto, 191J6), J.Wi Humphrey on Book
59 (Diss. British Columbia, 1976).
2
Casii Dionis Cocceiani Historiae Romanae Quae \upersunt (2 vols., splendidly
printeaK^Jt is not as an editor of Dio, however, that Reimar is best known today,
but as a rationalistic critic of the scriptures. On Reimar and the theological storm
provoked by his Apologie oder Schutzschrift fr die vernnftigen Verehrer Gottes,
withheld during his lifetime but published in excerpt after His death by Lessing,
see CH. Talbert, ed., Reimarus: Fragments (Philadelphia, 1970), 1-27.
3
On Sturz see Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 37.56-59. The edition of Dip by
E. Gros and V. Boisse with French translation (Paris, .1840-1875) is liberally
annotated as far as Book 42, sparsely thereafter. - -^~
4
Reimar did not interleave the different gets of fragments so as to reproduce the
original order of Dio's account in Books 1-35. The first to do so was Gros
(above, n3). This shortcoming of Reimar's edition is related to his" scepticism,
X SERIES PREFACE

on Books 36-60, the best preserved part of the History, treating 69 B.C. to A.D.
46, are by his father-in-law, Johann Albrecht Fabricius (1688-1736), author of
the monumental Bibliotheca Graeca, and were completed by 1726.5 For Books
61-80 we have Reimar himself as chief guide.
Two and a half centuries after Reimar's edition, the Roman History stands
conspicuously in need of a fresh commentary. It is the plan of a team of
scholars, organized under the title of th Dio Project, to renew Reimar's work by
preparing a commentary on the entire Dio, including, where the original fails,
the Byzantine excerpts and epitomes. It would be better, clearly, if a single
commentator could be commissioned to do the whole. But such a desideratum ft
not likely to be realized, given the size and complexity of the corpus and the
scope of Dio's theme: a millennium of the history of Rome and a territory that
on the modern map bears the colours of three dozen states.
The new commentary, which is addressed to sfudents of history\jnd
historiography, is undertaken in the belief that systematic study of Dio's usage
and reliability as an historian can reveal something that enquiries into isolated
passages or books cannot, and can also contribute to the elaboration of critical
approaches to the History sensitive to the various sources, methods, and rules of
evidence employed by Dio from segment to segment and period to period in his
work. The historians, Dio's largest audience, still lacking the sharper critical
tools now available to students of Polybius, Livy, and Tacitus, are prone to take
refuge in an undifferentiated scepticism towards his testimony. The commentary
can also perform the helpful service of collating scholarly discussions of the
thousands of testimonia with which Dio's History provides us, sometimes
uniquelydiscussions often published under titles that bear no reference to Dio.
In pursuit of these aims we have excellent models: Gomme/Andrewes and Dover
on Thucydides and Walbank on Polybius, to give the briefest of lists. How far
short we are likely to fall of such a standard, we are painfully aware.
We have not been tempted to prepare a new text. Like Polybius, Dio came
to the West cruelly dismembered, only Books 36 to 54 surviving intact (or
virtually so). But he has been well served by his patron goddess Tyche (cf.
72.23.4) in the sortition of modern editors, from the King's PrintewRobertus
Stephanus (Estienne) (1503-1559), author of the 'editio princeps (Paris, 1548),

later shown to be - excessive, about using Books 7-9 of Zonaras' Epitome in

reconstructing Books 1.-21 of Dio's History (to 146 B.C.).
5
See Reimar vol. 1, preface 21.
 SERIES PREFACE xi

through Reimar, to Cobet's pupil Ursul Philip Boisseyain (1855-1930), whose

masterly edition (Berlin, 1895-1901) promises to hold the field for some time.6
We have incurred many debts that we are happy to have this opportunity of
acknowledging. The University of Saskatchewan and the University of Calgary
have supported the editors in more ways than can be mentioned here. A grant
from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada enabled
the members of the Dio Project to meet in Saskatoon for a "founders'"
conference in 1982; the Council has also made grants to individual
commentators (these to be acknowledged in the proper volumes). For interest
and advice we are warmly grateful to Professors Ernst Badian, Barry Baldwin,
Timothy Barnes, Fergus Millar, and Susan Treggiari. It goes without saying
^that none of these bears any responsibility for the shortcomings of our work.
The following volumes of commentary are projected, to be published as
each is completed rather than seriatim.
Books MO (to 265 B.C.)
Books 11-21 (264-146 B.C.)
Books 22-40 (145-50 B.C.)
Books 41-44 (49-44 B.C.)
Books 45-48 (44-37 B.C.)
Books 49-52 (36-29 B.C.)
Books 53-56 (28 B.C.-A.D. 14)
Books 57-63 (A.D. 14-68)
Books 64-67 (A.D. 69-96)
Books 68-72 (A.D. 96-1.92)
Books 73-80 (A.D. 193-229)

P.M. Swan
J.W. Humphrey

6
The edition was complemented by an Index Historicus (vol. 4, by H. Smilda,
19ife) and an Index Graecitatis (vol. 5, by W. Nawijn, 1931). The large and
complex task of constituting the modern text out of disiecta membra of the
original is a signal achievement of four centuries of scholarship, thanks to which -.
it is now possible to study the Roman History as an entity. For a full account of
this achievement, see Boissevain's edition;, for a briefer treatment see th Loeb
Dio, vol. l.xvii-xxiv: cf. F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1-964), 1-4.
 FREFAC^TO VOLUME 6

In their commentaries on the histories of Pojybius-and of Livy, F.W.

Walbank and R.M. Ogilvie made modest claims: "to^etucidate what Polybius
thought and said" (Walbank); "to make it easier fata reader to appreciate die
ancient text" (Ogilvie). Such is the aim, too, of this commentary on Cassius
Dio's Roman History, Books 49-52. Attention to Dio's historiographical
methods is essential and frequent; but there is little concern with literary style,
except insofar as this affects the character of Dio's treatment of events and
historical figures.. .
The text of Dio followed in this commentary is that of Ursul Philip
Boissevain (Berlin, 1895-1901); this is also available ia Earnest Cary's Loeb
Classical Library edition of Dio's history (London, 1914-1927).
This commentary on Dio would not have been brought to fruition without
the initiative, courage, and devotion of Michael Swan and John Humphrey in the
daunting project of producing an historical commentary on the whole of Dio's
History. For their prudent advice, knowledge of Cassius Dio and of Roman
history and institutions, their razor-sharp readings of the manuscript (I have lost
count of the number of times), and relentless demand for precision, clarity, and
thoroughness, I owe them a heavy debt, and at the same^time absolution from
any surviving blemishes. Thanks are due also to Fergus Millar for his many
suggestions for improvement of this commentary,,to Naphtali Lewis for his
advice on aspects of the Roman administration of Egypt, and to Kenneth Harl for
his expertise in the Roman imperial coinage' of tne third jcentury. I am also
grateful to the Graduate School Research Council of die Uiiversity of Missouri
at Columbia for a grant toward die purchase of otherWise inaccessible books.and
to Harvard University for access to the resources of Widener Library

Cambridge, Massachusetts Meyer Reinhold

7 August 1986
 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

1. TEXTS AND EDITIONS OF DIO

Reimar, H.S. Cassii DionisCocceiani Historiae RomanaeQuaeSuper sunt. 2

vols. Hamburg, 1750-1752. --
Sturz, F.W. Dionis Cassii Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum Quae Supersunt.
8 vols. Leipzig, 1824-1825. .
Boissevain, U.P. Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romnarum Quae
Supersunt I -3 (text), 4 {Index Historiens , ed|H. Sirnlda), 5 {Index
Graecitatis, ed. W. Nawijn). Berlin, 1895-1931 i
Cary, E. Dio's Roman History. Loeb Classical Librairy. 9 vbls; London-,
1914-1927.

2. WORKS OF REFERENCE

This list is limited to the works of reference and the collections of documents
used most frequently in this volume, and to certain other works cited,so often as
to warrant a compendious abbreviation. Standard works of reference not listed
here are abbreviated as in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Oxford,
1970) [= OCD ], periodicals as in L'anne philologique. For abbreviations of
works of scholarship on Dio and mis period of Roman history, see ate Select
Bibliography that follows this section.

ANRW = Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen HJIrfr. Berlin, 1972-,

BMCRep. = Coins of the Roman Republic in the/British Museum. 3 vols.
London, 1910 (rpt. with corrections, 1970).
BMCEmp. = Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum. London,
1923-.
CAH =The Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge,,"1924-.
DS = C. Daremberg and E. Saglio. Dictionnaire des antiquits grecques et
romaines. Paris, 1877-1919.
EJ2 = V. hrenberg and A.H.M*. Jones. Documents Ulustrating^h-R&ns o.
Augustus and Tiberius. 2nd ed. Oxfbrd, 1955.
XVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
FIRA = S. Riccobono et al., eds. Fontes iuris romani anteiustiniani. Florence,
1940-1943.
HRR = H. Peter. Historicorum Romanorum reliquiae. 2nd ed., 1906-;1914;
rpt. with a supplement, Stuttgart, 1967.
1GRR - Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes. Paris, 1911-1927.
Ht. = Inscriptiones ltaliae. Rome, 1931-.
ILS = H. Dessau. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Berlin, 1892-1916.
LSJ = H.G. Liddell and R. Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. New ed., rev. H.
Smart Jones. Oxford, 1940 (Supplement, 1968).
Lewis & Reinhold = N. Lewis and M. Reinhold, eds. Roman Civilization, I:
The Republican: The Empire. Rev. ed. New York, 1967.
MRR = T.R.S. Broughton. The Magistrates of th Roman Republic. Vols.
' 1-2: New York, 1951-1952 (Supplement, 1960); vol. 3, Supplment:
Chico, California, 1985.
OGIS = W. Dittenberger, d. Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. 2 vols.
Leipzig, 1903-1905; rpt. 1960.
OLD = Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford^ 1968-1982.
PIR^,PIR2 = Prosopographia 'Imperii Romani. 1st d. Berlin, 1897-1898.
2nd d. Berlin, 1933-.
RE = Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart,
1893-,
SEG = Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden 1923-.

3. SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen Dio = H.A. Andersen. Cassius Dio und die Begrndung des
Principates. Berlin, 1938.
Asdourian Beziehungen = P. Asdourian. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen
Armenien und Rom von 190 v. Chr. bis 428 n. Chr. Diss. Freiburg,
1911.
Baisdon Romans = J.P.V.D. Baisdon. Romans and Aliens. London, 1979.
Barbieri Albo = G. Barbieri. L'Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino..
Roma, 1952.
Bauman RhM 124 (1981) = R.A. Bauman. "Tribunician Sacrosanctity in 44,
36, and 35 B42." RhM 124 (1981), 166-183.
Becher Kleopatra = I. Becher. Das Bild der Kleopatra in der griechischen und
lateinischen Literatur. Berlin, 1966.
Bengtson Antonius = H. Bengtson. Marcus Antonius, Triumvir und Herrscher
des Orients. Mnchen, 1977.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xvu
Beiigtson Partheffeldzug = H. Bengtson. Zum Partherfeldzug des Antonius.
SBAWI. Mnchen, 1974.
Beranger Recherches = J. Beranger. Recherches sur l'aspect idologique du
principat. Basel, 1953.
Bering-Staschewski Zeitgeschichte = R. Bering-Staschewski, Rmische
Zeitgeschichte bei Cassius Dio. Bochum, 1981 .
. - t

Bertinelli Angeli Roma = M.G. Bertinelli Angeli. Roma e l'Oriente. Roma,

1979.
Bleicken Hermes. 90 (1962) = J. Bleicken. "Der politische Standpunkt Dios
gegenber der Monarchie." Hermes 90 (1962), 444-467.
Bleicken Senatsgericht = J.Bleicken. Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht. Eine
Studie zur Entwicklung des Prozessrechts im frhen Prinzipat.
Gttingen, 1962.
Bleicken Verfassung = J. Bleicken. Verfassungs- und Sozialgeschichte des
rmischen Kaiserreiches. 2 vols. Paderborn, 1978.
Blumenthal WS 35 (1913), 36 (1914) = F. BlumenthaL "Die Autobiographie
des Augustus." WS- 3p (1913), 113-130, 267-288; 36 (1914), 84-103/
Bowersock Augustus = G.W. Bowersock. Augustus and the Greek World.
Oxford, 1965.
Brunt Manpower = P.A. Brunt. Italian Manpower 225 B.C. - A.D. 14.
Oxford, 1971.
Brunt & Moore Res Gestae = P.A. Brunt and J.M. Moore. Res Gestae Divi
Augusti. London, 1967.
Buchheim Orientpolitik = H. Buchheim. Die Orientpolitik des Triumvirn M.
Antonius. AHAW 3. Heidelberg, i960.
Brcklein Quellen = A. Braklein. Quellen und Chronologie der rmisch-
parthischen Feldzge in den Jahren 713-718d.St. Berlin, 1879.
Campbell Emperor = J.B. Campbell. The Emperqr a*d 0te Roman Army 31
B.C.-AD.235. Oxford, 1984. I j
Carter Actium = J.M. Carter. The Battle of Actiurk: The Rise and Triumph of
Augustus Caesar. London, 1970. >
Casson Ships - L. Casson. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World.
Princeton, 1971. -1
Cerfaux & Tondriau Culte = L. Cerfaux and IT Tondriau, Le culte des
souverains dans la civilisation grc&^omaine. Bibliothque de
Theologie ser. 3, vol. 5. Tournai, 1957. *~ A
Classical Sites = Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Princeton, 1976.
Colledge Parthians = M.A.R. Colkdge. The Parthians. Londonvl^?, ,- .
Crawford Coinage = M.H. Crawford. Roman Republican Coinage. 2 vols.
Cambridge, 1974.
xvin BIBLIOGRAPHY

Debevoise Parthia = N.C. Debevoise. A Political History of Parthia.

Chicago, 1938.
Espinosa Ruiz Debate = U. Espinosa Ruiz. Debate Agrippa-Mecenas en Dion
Cassio: Respuesta senatorial a la crisis dtifmpefo Romano en poca
severiana. Madrid, 1982.
Fadinger Begrndung = V. Fadinger. Die Begrndung des Prinzipats:
Quellenkritische und staatsrechtliche Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dio
und der Parqllelberlieferung. Berlin, 1969.
Flach A&A 18 (1973) = D. Flach. "Dios Platz in der kaiserzeitlichen
Geschichtsschreibung." A&A 18 (1973), 130-143.
Frank Economic Survey = T. Frank, ed. An Economic Survey of Ancient
Rome. 6 vols. Baltimore, 1933-1940.
Friedlnder Sittengeschichte = L. Friedlnder. Darstellungen aus der
Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der
Antonine. 10th ed., ed. G. Wissowa. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1921-19Z2;
rpt. Aalen, 1964.
Gabba Appian = E. Gabba. Appiani bellorum civilium liber quintus. Firenze,
1970.
Gabba RSI 67 (1955) = E. Gabba. "Sulla Storia Romana di Cassip Dione."
RSI 67 (1955), 289-333.
Gabba RSI 71 (1959) = E. Gabba, "Storici greci dell'impero romano da
Auguste ai Seven." RSI 71 (1959), 361-381.
Gabba Studi (1962) = E. Gabba. "Progetti di riforme economiche e fiscali in
uno storico dell ' e ta dei Seven." Studi in onore di Amintore Fanfani
(Milano, 1962) 1.39-68.
Ganter Provinzialverwaltung = L. Ganter. Die Provinzialverwaltung der
Triumvirn. Diss. Strassburg, 1892.
Gardthausen Augustus = V. Gardthausen. Augustus und seine Zeh. 2 vols.
Leipzig, 1891-1904.
Garnsey Status = P. Gamsey. Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman
Empire. Oxford, 1970. /
Geraci Genesi = G. Geraci. Genesi delta provincia romana d'Egitto. Studi di
Storia Antica 9. Bologna, 1983.
Glauning Anhngerschaft = A.E. Glauning. Die Anhngerschaft des Antonius
und des Octavian. Diss. Leipzig, 1936.
Grant Imperium = M. Grant. From Imperium to Auctoritas: Cambridge,
1946; rpt 1969. .
Gnther Beitrge = A. Gnther. Beitrge zur Geschichte der Kriege zwischen
Rmern und Parthern. Diss. Berlin, 1922.
Hadas Sextus = M. Hadas. Sextus Pompey. New York, 1930.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xix
Hammond Monarchy = M. Hammond, The Antonine Monarchy. Papers and
.Monographs of the American Academy in Rome I9. 1 Rome, 1959.
Hammond Principale = M.Hammond. The Augustan Principale in Theory and
Practice During the Julio-Claudian Period. Cambridge, Mass., 1933;
rev. ed. New York, 1968:
Hammond TAPhA 63 (1932) = M. Hammond. "The Significance of the Speech
of Maecenas in Dio Cassius, Book 52." TAPhA 63 ( 1932), 88-102.
Harrington Dio = J.D. Harrington. Cassius. Dio: A Reexamination. Diss.
Kentucky, 1970.
Holmes Architect = T. Rice Holmes. The Architect of the Roman Empire.
Oxford, 1928. - - . . - . ' * . '
Huzar Antony = E.G. Huzar. Mark Antony: A Biography. Minneapolis,
s 1978.
Jal Guerre = P . Jal. La guerre civile Rome: tude littraire el rhprale. Paris,
1963.
Jard tudes = A. Jard. tudes critiques sur la vie et le rgne de Svre
Alexandre. Paris, 1925. i
Johnson Propaganda = J.R. Johnson. Augustan Propaganda. Diss. California
(Los Angeles), 1976.
Jones Cities = A.H.M. Jones. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces.
2nded. Oxford, 1971.
Kelly Princeps = J.M. Kelly. Princeps Iudex. Weimar, 1957.
Keppie Colonisation = L. Keppie. Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in
Italy, 47-14 B.C. London, 1983.
Kienast Augustus = D. Kienast. Augustus Prinzeps und Monarch. Darmstadt,
1982. "':"
Kleyt Pauly = K. Ziegler et al., eds. Der Kleine Paily: Lexicon der Antike. 5
vols. Stuttgart, 1964-1975. -.. ,
Kromayer Schlachtfelder = J ; Kromayer. Antike iSchtachtfelder 4. Berlin,
1924-1931. !'
Kyhnitzsch De Contionibus = E. Kyhnitzsch. De ontionibus, quas Cassius
Dio historiae suae intexuit, cum Thucydideis comparatis. Diss.
Leipzig, 1894.
de Lael Samenstelling = S.J. de Laet. De famenstelling van den romeinschen
senaat gedurende de eerste eeuwvan het principaat. Antwerpen, 1941.
Lambrechts Composition = P. Lambrechts. La composition du srit romain de
Septime Svre Diocttien 193-284. Dissertationes Pannonicae 1.8.
Budapest, 1937; rpt. Roma, 1968.
XX BIBLIOGRAPHY
Leroux RecPL 2 (1968) 29-61 = J. Leroux. "Les problmes stratgiques de la
bataille d'Actium." Recherches de Philologie et de Linguistique 2
(1968), 29-61. , .
Letta Ricerche (1979) = C. Ltta. "La composizione dell'opera di Cassio
Dione: cronologia e sfondo storico-politico." Ricerche di storiografa
antica,!: Ricerche di storiografia greca di et romana (Pisa, 1979), 117-
189.
Levi Athenaeum 15 (1937) =.M.. Levi. "Dopo Azi6. Appunti sulle fonte
augustee: Dione Cassi." Athenaeum 15(1937)1-25. [= II tempo di
Augusto (Firenze, 1951), 415-434 (Appendix 6)]
Levi Tempo = M.A.Levi. Il tempo di'Augusto. Fjrenze, 1951.
Magie De Vocabulis = D. Magie. De. Romanorum iuris publici sacrique
vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis. Leipzig,
X
1905.
Magie Roman Rule = D. Magie. Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the
Third Century after Christ. 2 vols. Princeton, 1950.
Manuwald Dio - B. Manuwald. Cassius Dio und Augustus. Wiesbaden,
1979.
de Martino Storia = F. de Martino. Storia delta costituzione romana. 2nd ed.,
6 vols. Napoli, 1974-1975.
Mason Greek Terms = H.J. Mason. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions.
American Studies in Papyrology 13. Toronto, 1974.
Melber Abhandlungen (1891) = J. Melber. "Dio Cassius ber die letzten
Kmpfe gegen Sext. Pompejus, 36 v. Chr." In Abhandlungen aus dem
Gebiet der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Wilhelm von Christ zum
sechzigsten Geburtstag (Mnchen, 1891), 211-236.
Meyer De Oratione = P.Meyer. De Maecenatis oratione a Dione ficta. Diss.
Berlin, 1891.
Millar Emperor = F. Millar. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 B.C.-A.D.
337). Ithaca, 1977.
Millar Study = F.Miliar. A Study of Cassius Dio. Oxford, 1964.
Miliar & Segal Augustus = F. Millar and E. Segal, eds. Caesar Augustus:
Seven Aspects. Oxford, 1984.
Mommsen StR = T. Mommsen. Rmisches Staatsrecht. 3 vols. (vols. 1-2,
3rd ed.). Leipzig, 1887-1888; rpt. 1952.
Nash Dictionary = E. Nash. Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome. 2 vols.
New York, 1961-1962.
Papazoglu Tribes = F. Papazoglu. The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman
Times. Amsterdam, 1978.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY xxi

Reinhold Agrippa = M. Reinhold. Marcus Agrippa, A Biography. Geneva,

N.Y., 1930; rpt. Rome, 1965.
Richardson JRS 27 (1937) = G.W. Richardson. "Actium." JRS 27 (1937),
156-164.
Roddaz Agrippa = J.-M. Roddaz. Marcus Agrippa. Rome, 1984.
Rodgers Warfare = W.L. Rodgers. Greek and Roman Naval Warfare.
Annapolis, 1937; rpt. 1964.
Rossi Antonio = R.F. Rossi. Marco Antonio nella lotta politico della tarda
Repubblica romana. Trieste, 1959.
Rostovtzeff SEHRE = M. Rostovtzeff. Social and Economic History of the
Roman Empire. 2 vols. Rev. ed. by P.M. Fraser. Oxford, 1957.
Safrai & Stern Jewish People = S.-Safrai and M. Stern. The Jewish People in
N
the First Century , vol. 1. Assen, 1974.
Sattler Augustus = P. Sattler. Augustus und der Senat. Gttingen, 1960.
Scardigli Rmerbiographien = B. Scardigli. Die Rmerbiographien Plutarchs.
Mnchen, 1979.
Schaut Herodes = A. Schallt. Knig Herodes, Der Mann und sein Werk.
Berlin, 1969.
Schleussner Legaten = B. Schleussner. Die Legaten der rmischen Republik.
Mnchen, 1978.
Schmitthenner Historia 7 (1958) = W. Schmitthenner. "Octavians militrische
Unternehmungen in den Jhren 35-33 v. Chr." Historia 7 (1958), 189-
236.
Schrer History = E. Schrer. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of
Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135), vol. 1. Rev. ed. by G. Vermes and
F. Millar. Edinburgh, 1973.
Schwartz RE 3 = RE 3.1684-1722 = Cassius 40 (Schwartz); reprinted in E.
Schwartz, Griechische Geschichtschreiber (Leipzig,' 1957), 394-450.
Scott MAAR 11 (1933) = K. Scott. "The Political Propaganda of 44-30 B.C."
j
MAAR 11 (1933), 7-49.
Scuderi Commento = R. Scuderi. Commento a Piutarco 'Vita di Antonio.'
Firenze, 1984.
Sherwin-White Foreign Policy = A.N. Sherwin-White. Roman Foreign Policy
in th East 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. Norman, Oklahoma, 1984.
Shipley MAAR 9 (1931) = F.W. Shipley. "Chronology of the Building
Operations in Rome from the Death of Caesar to the Death of
Augustus." MAAR 9 (1931), 7-60.
Smallwood Jews = E.M. Smallwood. The Jews Under Roman Rule from
* Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden, 1976.
XXtl BIBLIOGRAPHY
Syme Papers = R. Syme. Roman Papers. Ed. E. Badian and A.R. Birley. 3
vols. Oxford, 1979-1984.
Syme Revolution = R. Syme. The Roman Revolution. 2nd ed. Oxford,
1952.
Talbert Senate = R.J.A. Talbert. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton,
1984.
TarnC 26 (1932) = W.W. Tarn. "Antony's Legions." CQ 26 (1932), 75-
81.
Tarn Ji?S 21 (1931) = W.W. Tarn. "The Battle of Actium." JRS 21(1931),
173-199.,
Taylor Divinity = L.R. Taylor. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor.
Middletown, 1931.
Trnkle WS 82 (1969) = H. Trnkle. "Augustus bei Tacitus, Cassius Dio und
dem lteren Plinius." WS 82 (1969), 108-130. V
van Stekelenburg Redevoeringen = A.V. van Stekelenburg. De Redevoeringen
bij Cassius Dio. Diss. Delft, 1971.
Veith Fetdzge = G. Veith. Die Feldzge des C. Julius Caesar Octavianus in
Illyrien in den Jahren 35-33 v. Chr. Schriften der Balkancommission,
Antiquarische Abt. 7. Vienna, 1914; rpt. Lichtenstein, 1976.
Vrind De Vocabulis = G. Vrind. De Cassii Dionis vocabulis Quae ad ius
publicum pertinent. The Hague, 1923.
Weinstock Julius = S. Weinstock. Divus Julius. Oxford, 1971.
Wilkes Dalmatia = J.J. Wilkes. Dalmatia. Cambridge, Mass., 1969.
Wirth Dio = G. Wirth. Introduction to Cassius Dio: Rmische Geschichte 1
(trans. O. Veh). Zrich and Mnchen, 1985.
Woodman Velleius = A.J. Woodman. Velleius Paterculus. The Caesarian and
Augustan Narrative (2.41-93). Cambridge, 1983.
Wurzel Krieg = F. Wurzel. Der Krieg gegen Antonius und Kleopatra in der
Darstellung der augusteischen Dichtung. Diss. Heidelberg, 1941.
Ziegler Beziehungen = K.-H. Ziegler. Die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und dem
Partherreich: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Volkerrechts. Wiesbaden,
1964.
 DIO'S LIFE AND CAREER

164 or 165 born in Nicaea in Bithyriia, the son of M. Cassius

Apronianus, a Roman senator

by 180 in Rome and attending meetings of the Senate

181/182? comes to his father as governor of Cilicia

192 member of the Senate (probably quaestor in 189 or 190)

193 designated praetor by Pertinax; in Rome under Didius

Julianus and on the accession of Sepumius Severus

194 or 195 praetor

after 194 propraetorian governor of a minor province

or 195

by 204 member of the imperial consilium

205? or 206? suffect consul

winter 214- accompanied Caracalla on part of his eastern tour, as amicus

215 (?) of the Emperor

217-218 in Rome on the accession of Macrinus, and probably for

most of the following year

218-221? curator of Pergamum and Smyrna, appointed by Macrinus

221?-223? in Bithynia

ea 223 proconsular governor of Africa

2 ^-TWO'S LIFE AND CAREER

. ea 224-228 legatus Augusti first in Dalmatia and then in Pannonia

Superior

228 incurred the hostility of the Praetorian Guard because of his

strict disciplining of his Pannonian troops; designated by
Severus consul for the following year

229 colleague of Severus Alexander in the consulship; retired to

Bithynia with a foot ailment

Almost everything we know about Cassius Dio Cocceianus comes to us

from his own writings, though a few of the events are chronologically insecure
and are still the subject of scholarly dispute: notably his birthdate, his first
consulship, and the dates of composition of his History. V
Sfnce Dio himself tells us that he was in Rome, and apparently attending
meetings of the Senate, by 180 (72.4.2), the date for his birth was traditionally
fixed at 155, allowing him to have been quaestor, and so a senator, by the
normal age of twenty-five (cf. 52.20.1). But in fact Dio's first clear reference to
himself as a member of the Senate does not occur until 192 (72.16.3; cf.
72.18.3), and he was not praetor until 194 or 195 (73.12.2), ' Fourteen years is
an excessively long gap between the quaestorship and praetorship, even in the
troubled times of the late second century. So, on the assumption that Dio held
the praetorship at the standard age of thirty (52.20.1), it is likely that he was
born in 164 or 165; that he travelled to Rome before 180 and there attended
meetings of the Senate after assuming the toga virilis (a common practice for
senators' sons since the time of Augustus); and that he held the quaestorship in
189 or 190.
Dio was a native of Nicaea in the province of Bithynia (75.15.3). Though
his name suggests that he might have been a descendant of Dio Cocceianus of
nearby Prusa, the connection was undoubtedly a distant one: the historian once
refers to the earlier philosopher, but not by name (69.3.6). His father was M.
Cassius Apronianus, a Roman senator and governor of three provinces (49.36.4;

1
His praetorship has, until recently, been dated to 194, the year following
his designation to the magistracy by Pertinax (see, e.g., Millar Study 16). But
T.D. Barnes (Phoenix 30 [1984], 242) has argued for 195 on the basis of a
passage (74.4.4-5.4) in which Dio refers to the magistrates of 193 and the
designates for 194 in the third person, while reserving the first person plural for
senators in general. This date, then, would make 165 the more likely year of his
birth (but by no means the certain year, given Dio's imprecision in the use of
nue).
 DIO'S LIFE AND CAREER 3

69.1.3; IGRR 3.654) including Cilicia, whither Dio accompanied him as comes
in 181 or 182, after his sojourn in Rome (72.7.2). 2 Thus Dio was the product
of two nations and two cultures, and he considered both Asia Minor and Italy as
his homelands (frg. 1.3; 80.5.2). And it seems only reasonable to infer that he
was as fluent in Latin as he was in his native Greek.
Once he had won membership in the Senate through his quaestorship, Dio
joined in that body's universal hatred of Commodus (cf. 72.15.1), but survived
the tyrant to be designated praetor for 194 or 195 by Pertinax (73.12.2). Within
three months, Dio's hopes for stable and sensible rule gave way to personal
anxiety on the usurpation of Didius Julianus, whom our historian had earlier
prosecuted successfully in court (73.12.2). Yet the new Emperor proved
surprisingly lenient in the short time before he was condemned and Septimius
Severus was elevated to the imperial purple, all at a meeting af the Senate at
which Dio was present (73.17.4).
It was presumably as much through initial admiration as with any intent to
ingratiate himself with the new Emperor that Dio dedicated to Severus his first
book, a short account of the dreams and signs that had appeared to the general in
anticipation of his rise to imperial power (72.23.1). This little pamphlet,
probably written after 196 (cf. 75.4.2) and parts of which were later included in
the Roman History (cf. 74.3), is significant in its revelation of Dio's close
relationship with the Emperor, from whom personally he must have heard the
details; and incidentally it indicates that interest in the supernatural that was to
appear frequently in much of Dio's later work.-' A second book, describing
events from the death of Commodus, he wrote after being advised in a dream to
devote his efforts to the recording of history (72.23.1-2). When this work, too,
received high praise, especially from the Emperor himself, Dio was inspired to
compose a complete history of Rome (72.23.3).
So~the Roman History was conceived. Dio apparently did much of his
research and writing while resident at Capua \ti Italy j(76.2.1), but his
responsibilities as a senator and his proximity to the capital allowed him to be a
witness-pf-events. during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla, though there is
gap of almost a decade (up to 214) in our knowledge of his activities. With a
candor unusual among ancient historians, Dio tells us that he spent ten years
collecting his material from all available sourcesa practice that surely
compelled him to take extensive notesand another twelve years reshaping this
material into an annalistic history of the Roman people from the arrival of

2
For the problematic date of Dio's visit to Cilicia, see F. Grosso, La. lotto
politico al tempo di Commodo (Turin, 1964), 158-159.
3
But note Dio's rational comments about the significance of the
supernatural in frg. 57.22.
4 DIO'S LIFE AND CAREER

Aeneas in Italy to the death of Septimius Severus and, later, beyond (72.23.5).
His purpose, as he explained it, was "to record everything memorable that was
done by the Romans, in times of peace as well as in war, so that no Roman or
anyone else should ever regret die loss of necessary information" (frg. 1.1).
Although a regular participant in imperial government, Dio consciously
avoided the more awkward political affairs of his day: his two earlier pamphlets
had doubtless secured his favour with Severus. Sometime after his praetorship
in 194 or 195 he had probably been sent abroad as propraetorian governor of a
minor province (note the rescript of Severus to a Dio in Dig. 50.12.7); and he
was appointed suffet consul, probably in 205 or 206, at least certainly during
the reign of Severus (76.16.4)/* About'this time, too, he was a member of the
Emperor's consilium (75.16.2-4; cf. 76.17.2). And despite his hatred of
Caracallawhich he obviously could not have revealed until after that man's
deathhe was still regarded highly enough to be asked to accompany the
Emperor on a tour of the East in 214-215 (77.16.7-18.4).
Dio was back in Rome by 217, when word was brought of the accession of
Macrinus (78.37.5; cf. 78.16.2-4), and probably remained there for most of the
next year (78.38.2). Appointed curator of Pergamum and Smyrna by Macrinus
(79.7.4), he seems to have remained at that post from 218 until 221. After the
accession of Severus Alexander in 222, and following a visit to his native
Bithynia, where he fell ill, Dio went to Africa as its proconsular governor
(80.1.2). On his return thence to Italy, he was sent as an imperial legatus first
to Dalmatia and then to Upper Pannonia (49.36.4; 80.1.3), perhaps from 224 to
228. While governor of this last province he gained a reputation for strict
disciplining of his troops, a reputation that earned him the displeasure of the
Praetorian Guard (80.4.2), Still, Severus Alexander continued to honour Dio by
appointing him his colleague as consul for 229 (80.5.1). Because Dio was not a
wealthy man (cf. 73.3.4), the Emperor relieved him of all the expenses of his
magistracy; and because of the murderous antagonism of the Praetorians, he was
allowed by Severus to spend his term of office outside Rome (80.5.1). Soon
afterwards he retired to Bithynia because of a medical problem with his feet
(80.5.2). His narrative ends at this point, when Dio was about 65: his
resignation from historical study followed his resignation from public life
(80.5.3).

" John Humphrey

For the date of his first consulship, see the convincing arguments of
Millar in Study 204-207, now almost universally accepted.
 INTRODUCTION TO BOOKS 49-52

In a buoyant aside as he approached the end of his labours, Cassius Dio

expressed the hope that in his work he was leaving a legacy for the future, and
that his History, the magnum opus to which he devoted twenty-two years of his
life, would "survive and never lose its lustre" (72.23.4). No one will deny that
Dio stands in the shade of his illustrious predecessorsHerodotus, Thucydides,
Polybius, Livy, Tacitusbut for many periods and aspects of the history of
Rome he remains an indispensable resource, a veritable quarry for historians.
This is especially true for the years he treated in Books 49-52, that is, 36-29
B.C. One of the early moderns who appreciated Dio's value for the history of
the times of Augustus was East Apthorp: "Dio Cassius connects the history of
the republic with that of the empire. He has the merit and utility . . . of
combining the interrupted narrations of Velleius, Tacitus, Herodian, and the
Augustan history, in one copious detail. No other historian has given us so
ample and methodical a recital ofthat celebrated era, the Augustan age."1
To appreciate the importance of Dio's account of the transition from
Republic to Principate and of the Age of Augustus, consider how badly off we
would be lacking his History: How random and discontinuous would have been
our knowledge of the political, constitutional, and military history of this
epochal period in the long annals of Rome, indeed of world history. Beset
though Dio's work is with problems of fact, chronology, and; interpretation, his
account is "le plus prodigue en renseignements, vulnrable aux critiques"2and
remains indispensable.
Dio's shortcomings and limitations are patent: bookishness, rhetorical
extravagances, penchant for patterned antitheses, lack of expertise in military
strategy and tactics, proneness to stereotypical descriptions of battles and sieges,
studied imitation of predecessors, especially Thucydides, simplistic economics,
chronological displacements, anachronisms retrojected for the structuring of
paradigms and parallels as edification for his own perilous times. Despite his

1
Letters on the Prevalence of Christianity Before its Civil Establishment
(London, 1788), 33-34. ,
2
Beranger Recherches 97.
6 INTRODUCTION

experience and stature in Roman administration, he could even suffer from lapses
of knowledge of law.3
The modern historian of Rome, dependent as he often is on Dio, must
constantly be wary of his selection of data, his ordering of them, and his
judgements on them. These patterns were, in varying degree, the outcome of his
historiographical methods and literary style, the techniques and conceptions of
the Graeco-Roman historiographie tradition that he inherited, and his relationship
to the sources he drew upon and compressed.4 If one must always tread warily
in utilizing the ancient historians, this is surely true of Dio's work. For strewn
throughout the vast fields of useful information there are many traps for the
incautious.
But Dio was not, it needs to be emphasized, a mere excerptor, epitomator,
scissors-and-paste historian: he imposed upon the Roman past his own
ideological perspectives. It is indeed indispensable to understand both his
ideological commitments and his utilitarian purposes. As Gabba has cautioned,
while Dio's "work is fundamental to an understanding of the Augustan
Principate," for Dio "the past is important insofar as it survives in the present,"
for its enrichment of the understanding of his own times.5
In order to discern the extent to which Dio was a creative thinker and writer,
we must first scrutinize the sources he depended upon and the manner in which
he utilized them for his own purposes in the History.

DIO'S SOURCES FOR BOOKS 49-52

Millar had little confidence that it would be possible to. discover the range
and pattern of Dio's pool of sources, and his selection, use, and manipulation of
them for the enlightenment of his own times.6 His sources, as Millar says,
were surely *ery varied, and there can be little doubt that the purposes, partisan
positions, tone, and style of his sources for Books 49-52 filtered through to his
own history. Unfortunately, however, Dio has left us largely in the dark
regarding the precise sources he used. Only once in this section does he cite a
source by name: < uv aio 'OKTCWUIO 7pd<pei.7 In the absence of the

Cf. R.S. Rogers, "Ignorance of the Law in Tacitus and Dio: Two Instances
from the History of Tiberius," TAPhA 64 (1933), 18-27.
On Dio's methods of compression see M.J. Moscovich, "Historical
Compression in Cassius Dio's Account of the Second Century B.C.," AncW 8
(1983), 137-143.
E.. Gabba, "The Historians and Augustus," in Millar & Segal Augustus 70-71;
Wirft Dio 11.
6
Study vii, 28, 34-38, 84-8-5, 91; cf. Wirth Dio 39-43.
44.35.3, citing Augustus' autobiography.
 INTRODUCTION 7

leading contemporary historical writers for the period from 36 to the end of 29
B.C.for example, the autobiographies of Augustus and Agrippa (and perhaps
Maecenas), the history of Aufidius Bassus (though we cannot be certain that he
reached back to the early years of Augustus' reign), and Livy's Books 129-133
(the text of which in the Periochae is exiguous)we are reduced to tenuous
conjectures that do not convince. Moreover, Dio did not leave us a theoretical
statement of principles to guide us to his preferences among specific
authorities. 8 Nevertheless, Dio tells us (frg. 1.2) that, while he read almost
everything written about his subject, he has set down in his History only
selected matters: ('Avyvcv uv> Jtvxa r evjrev t a jrepi air&v TIOI
Yeypauuva, a w y p a y a 8 o Jtvta AX' aa ^icpivoc.
While he was writing for Greek readers in the East, in Dio's History Roman
sources appear to predominate. This caused Dio problems in terminology,
dating, and communication of Roman value patterns. All these factors in
transmission from his sources constantly demand from the reader caution in the
use of his History. 9
While it is generally recognized that it is fruitless to determine the source or
sources Dio used for Books 49-50 (see Introduction to Book 49), the communis
opinio is that for Books 51-52 Dio relied principally on Livy. 10 Implicit in
this view that Livy was Dio's principal source for the early Principate is the
corollary that Livy was a pro-Augustan writer. Such a conception of Livy,
however, is overstated and requires considerable qualification.11 More important
' here, the view that Dio followed Livy has also tended to be overstated (especially
by Levi), and is indeed vulnerable for lack of conclusive probative support.12 In
fact, it is Manuwald's definitive conclusion, based on his superbly detailed
comparative analysis of Livy's Periochae and Dio for Books 45-56, that Livy
was not one of Dio's sources at all. 13 Moreover, Manuwald makes a sfrong
case for his conviction that, while Livy, Florus, Eutropius.iand Orosius put
Octavian in the right in his struggles with his fellow triumvirs, Dio does not

8
Millar Study 35.
9
See G.T. Griffith, in Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical Scholarship
(Oxford, 1968), 208.
10
Schwartz RE 3.1697-1705 (= Geschichtschreiber 415-426); Levi Athenaeum
.15 (1937), 3-11 (= Tempo 414-423 [Appendix 6: "Dione Cassio, fonte per l'et
" augustea"]); R. Syme, "Livy and Augustus," HSCPh 64 (1959), 73-74, 86 n293
(Syme believes that, beginning with 29 B.C., Livy was deserted by Dio); Fadinger
Begrndung 29, 131-133; H.J. Mette, "Livius und Augustus," Gymnasium 68
(1961), 281-284; Harrington Dio 35-44.
11
See, e.g., H. Petersen, "Livy and Augustus," TAPhA 92 (1961), 440-452.
12
Trnkle WS^S2 (1969), 126 n29.
13
Manuwald Dio 168-254 (especially 223-239), 281.
8 INTRODUCTION

follow a source or sources favourable to Octavian. For, in keeping with his

view that a contest for sole power was inevitable, Dio portrays all three
triumvirs as equally driven by cupido dominandi (see Introduction to Book 50).
At the beginning of the Principate there is an obvious shift in Dio's tone to
one more favourable to Octavian. This has led to the theory, first proposed by
Schwartz,14 that beginning with Book 51 Dio abandoned Livy and went over to
some annalistic writer of the early Principate sympathetic to Augustus.15 This
theory, it cannot be emphasized strongly enough, is pure conjecture.16
Millar considers that Dio used "various and complex" sources, 17 thus
reverting to a view antedating the unity theory of Schwartz and Levi, namely
that Dio in his note-taking plundered multiple sources randomly.18 Parallels
between Dio and Plutarch can be demonstrated (especially in the life of Antony),
but it is not likely that Dio used Plutarch directly.19 Similarly, the parallels
between Dio's treatment of Augustus and Suetonius' life of him do not justify a
commonly held earlier position that Dio used Suetonius directly as a sourcea
view now generally rejected. Dio may have drawn on Suetonius indirectly, or it
is possible that Dio and Suetonius used the same source. 20 Finally, we cannot
prove that Dio used either Cremutius Cordus or Aufidius Bassus as a source.21
The suggestion has been made, by Andersen,22 that Dio had access to a
collection that gathered together the various honours and powers granted to both
Julius Caesar and Augustus. Also not to be excluded is the possibility that Dio
had at hand a collection of rhetorical topoi and florilegia readily available to the
reading public in the Roman Empire.
However speculative the matter of Dio's actual sources is, there is no doubt
that Dio, like Livy, was a "book historian." He did not have recourse to
inscriptions; above all, he appears to have had no knowledge of Augustus* Res

14
RE 3.4697-1705 (= Geschichtschreiber 414-426).
15
See, e.g., M.P. Charlesworth, CAH 10.875-876; Trnkle WS 82 (1969),
114-115, 126, 128; Flach A&A 18 (1973), 138-139; Manuwald Dio 168-254,
275-277; Levi Athenaeum 15 (1937), 14-17 (= Tempo 424-427), who would put
the shift in source at Dio's 53.17-19, where Levi detects a suture.
16
R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), 1.273; 2.691.
17
Study 85-91.
18
F. Wilmans, De Dionis Cassii fontibus et auctoritate (Berlin, 1836); G.
Vrind, "De Cassii Dionis historiis," Mn 54 (1926), 321-347.
19
Cf. Harrington Dio 45-47.
20
See, e.g., Schwartz RE 3.1705, 1714-1715 (= Geschichtschreiber 426, 438-
439); Miliar Study 85-87; Harrington Dio 40-43, 47-54 (who argues that Dio used
Suetonius directly beginning with Book 52); R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford, 1958),
2.690; Manuwald Dio 258-268.
21
Manuwald Dio 254-258; Wirth Dio 39-43.
22
Dio 9-48, followed by Millar Study 90.
 INTRODUCTION 9
Gestae, for he is, in some details, patently at variance with the testimony in "the
queen of Latin inscriptions."23

DIO'S METHODS AND STYLE

It is manifest that, in form and content, Dio's History is a selective

pastiche, a blend of the data, tones, and prejudices of his sources, his own
marshalling of events and judgements, and his personal interests as a political
partisan in the early third century. It is, indeed, in Books 51-56, more than
anywhere else in his work, that Dio's personal imprint is most marked. 24 It is
clear that Dio was not a slavish imitator of his sources. Independence of
judgement both in the sources he chose to resort to and in his manipulation of
them can be demonstrated. 25 He imposed his own persona and was motivated
by his own general conception of events. 2 6 In fact, Dio occasionally provides
evidence of this: he states, for example (53.21.1), that he will limit his account
of Augustus' legislation to whatever has a bearing on his history: o a xf\
auYYpowpfi 7tp6o<popd oxi; and that, in general, oSv 5k Soucu K O 0 '
icaaTOV aKpioc teivai ("I do not need to go into precise details"). And
elsewhere he says that he will give his own opinion Crii u.fi 8oaoia),
whenever he is able, from the abundant evidence he has gathered from his
reading, from hearsay, and from personal observation, with judgements that "do
not follow the common report" (53.19.6: akko xi ykkov r\TOBpuAoujiEvov).
And he is especially cautious about the contents of official sources under the
Principate (53.19.4: "nearly everything is reported somewhat differently from
what actually occurs," Jtvta 8 ejtev aXktaq TMO f\ itpoVrcerai
SiaBpoetai). It is instructive to read that Dio is conscious of the fact that it
was difficult to know much about so extensive an empire, and to attain accuracy

23
See D.R. Stuart, "The Attitude of Cassius Dio Toward Epigraphic Sources,"
Roman Historical Sources and Institutions, University of Michigan Studies,
Humanistic Series 1 (New York, 1904), 102-112. On Dio's sources in general, see
Schwartz RE 3.1692-1716 (= Geschichtschreiber 406-441); Millar Study 32-38;
Harrington Dio passim; Manuwald Dio passim; Wirth Dio 39-43.
24
Cf. Millar Study 83, 92.
25
G. Zecchini (Cassio Dione e la guerra gallica di Cesare [Milano, 1978],
especially 106-108, 150) treats again the much-litigated problem of the
relationship of Dio's account of the Gallic War and Caesar's Commentaries, and
concludes that Dio was completely independent of Caesar and the Livian vulgate,
and used, rather, an anti-Caesarian source (perhaps Q. Aelius Tubero). His
conclusions, however, are highly questionable.
26
Zecchini, op. cit. 14, 199; cf. M. Grasshof, De Fontibus et Auctoritate
Dionis Cassii Cocceiani (Diss. Bonn, 1867), 38-43. '. '.
10 INTRODUCTION

because of the multitude of events.27 We need to recognize that, as in much of

imperial historiography, for Dio the capital was the focal point, especially the
tensions between princeps and Senate, and that caution is wise when Dio relates
events as "eyewitness."28
Dio's rationale for his purposeful selection from his sources was his
consuming concern with the general tendencies and the momentous events of the
early third century. His aim was, in general, a paraenetic one for his own age
(see below, under "Dio and the Third efltury"). Though he is formally an
annalist in method, Dio often violates strict chronological order when it suits
some particular purpose. He has no compunction about such chronological
misplacements, shifting events out of sequence, even from one year to another,
either to gain a special emphasis thereby, or for convenience in gathering
together related events and data. 29 For his purpose was not historical truth but
political and moral instruction. .
Thus one of Dio's principles of selection and emphasis is consciously
(though not expressly) analogical. He is constantly seeking for and~*structuring
models from the end of the Republic and the early Principate (e.g., 49.4. l-4n,
16.In; 51.2.1n) to support his own views of contemporary institutions and
individuals, especially regarding the character of the monarchy of the third
century and the status and power of his own social class. It is, accordingly,
necessary to be on guard against Dio's many anachronisms. Further, beginning
with Books 51-52 Dio narrows his focus, thus conforming to the tendencies of
imperial historiography: he shifts to a biographical emphasis, with the emperor
at the centre of events, as more appropriate to the reality of the concentration of
power in the Empire.30 His eyes are rarely turned away from the ever-present
figure of Octavian in these books.
In style and structure, moreover, Dio exhibits a distinctively characteristic
antithetical manner in Books 49-52, as elsewhere also {e.g., see introduction to
49.2.1-8.4; introduction to 49.19.1-22.3; 51.7.2-7n), both for dramatic effect and
to give trenchant emphasis to some personal viewpoint. For this purpose he

27
53.19.4, 6; cf. Flach A&A 18 (1973), 138-139.
28
Wirth Dio 19-20; Z. Rubin, Civil-War Propaganda and Historiography,
Collection Latomus, vol. 173 (Bruxelles, 1980), 9.
29
See, e.g., Millar Study 90; Fadingr Begrndung 334; Bleicken Hermes 90
(1962), 445-446; Flach A&A 18 (1973), 134-135. On the similar literary
methods of Plutarch in the use of sourcesconflation of related matters,
compression, telescoping of events, transfer of details from one person to
another, even fabricationssee C.B.R. Pelling, "Plutarch's Adaptation of his
Source-Material," JHS 100 (1980) 127-140.
Cf. C Questa, "Tecnica biografica e tecnica annalistica nei H. LIII-LXIII di
Cassio Dione," StudUrb 31 (1957), 37-53.
 INTRODUCTION 11
sometimes elevates to undue prominence insignificant events of the Augustan
Age, or wrenches them from their proper chronological order.
In Cassius Dio we find the victory of the Thucydidean-Polybian model
advocated by Lucian in "How to Write History," as reaction to the Herodotean
model followed by the historiographers of the second century (e.g., Appian and
Arrian). 31 Dio's well-known predilection for Thucydides as a model goes far
beyond the archaizing tendencies of his own times. As an- imitator of
Thucydides, he not only frequently extracts Thucydidean language, but at times
stylizes events on Thucydidean models. More important, Dio's own conception
of human naturethat self-interest and pragmatic purposes, not altruism and
idealism, prevailis -similar to that of Thucydides. Dio seeks to imitate
Thucydidean realism in dealing with events and personalities, and, Hke his great
predecessor, emphasizes the contrast between appearance and reality.-^
Though a bicultural native of Bithynia, Dio was, as Gibbon noted, not a
Greek but a Roman. But he was the product of the Second Sophistic as it
flourished in his native land, and his history, in the dominant language of the
eastern provinces of the empire, was directed to the educated elfte there. 33 ^

ON THE DATE OF COMPOSITION OF BOOKS 49-52

Efforts to date the composition of Dio's History from internal evidence have
yielded a variety of views. T.D. Barnes has conveniently recorded the
documentation for the major scholarly theories to date. 3 4 Gabba and Millar
argued for an early date of composition, before Severus Alexander, with the work
completed no later than 218 or 219; Vrind for a period not before 201-223, with
the final form at the beginning of the reign of Severus Alexander. Later dates,
212-234, have recently been proposed by Letta, with Books 38-55 composed in
229-230. Barnes' reassessment of the evidence has yielded a ateidate also. His

3
' G. Zecchini, "Modelli e problemi teorici dlia storiogrfia nell'et degli
Antonini," Critica Storica 20 (1983), 29-31. -
3
^ See especially E. Litsch, De Cassio Dione imitatore Thucydidis (Diss.
Freiburg, 1893), passim; Kyhnitzsch De Contionibus passim; Harrington Dio 57-
60; Flach A&A 18 (1973), 130-131; Manuwald Dio 75, 283-284. Seejilso
Appendix 1, "'Human Nature' in Dio." '"'
^ 3 W. Ameling, "Cassius Dio und Bithynien," EA 4 (1984), 126-128; Gabba
in Millar and Segal Augustus 64-65; L. Zgusta, "Die Rolle des Griechischen im
rmischen Kaiserreich," in Die Sprachen im rmischen Reich der Kaiserzeit,
Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbcher 40 (Kln, 1980), 121-145 (including "Der Einfluss
des-Lateinischen," 131-135). -
34
"The Composition of Cassius Di's Roman History," Phoenix 38 (1984),
240-255.
12 INTOODUCTION
conclusion is that the composition took definite shape in the reign of Severus
Alexander, with dates (at the earliest) of 211-220 for die ten years of collecting
materials, and 220-231 for the twelve years of composition. Barnes holds that
the early books of Dio were written not before 220, Book 49 in its final form no
earlier than ea 225, and Book 52 after 222/223.35
This commentator doubts that it is possible to determine the dates of
composition. From Dio's statement that he devoted ten years to collecting the
material and twelve years to composition, we cannot proceed with the
understanding that he meant twenty-two consecutive years. Eisman's proposal
that Dio's History was published posthumously has merit. 36 It may not have
seen the light of day until after the death of Severus Alexander.

DIO AND AUGUSTUS

With Book 51 Dio enters an epoch of Roman history that he treats with
increased scale. Books 49-50 cover a bit over five years, Books 51 -52 about two
year- (from the Battle of Actium to the autumn of 29), while the four books
devoted to the rest of the reign of Augustus (Books 53-56) span over forty years.
Beginning wiw Jook_5J_he proceeds with heightened certainty and sympathy,
for Dio is a "loyaler Anhnger der Monarchie."37 He is, indeed, most in tune
with monarchy, which was in his view an historical necessity for the
administration of the Roman empire. The Augustan system represented for Dio
the model of Roman monarchy, in the person of Augustus as princeps and in die
constitutional and social modalities created by Augustus as the normative form.
In his eyes the Principate attained more or less completed form under the first
princeps. 38 Deeply troubled about his own times, Dio feared that the very
existence of the constitutionally legitimized^ monarchy was threatened.
Moreover, he studied the newly founded monarchy from the viewpoint of a
defender of the imperial aristocracy of the third century, which was apprehensive
about its status and feared displacement from below. 39 Dio thus strives to
mould his account of the Principate of Augustus so as to emphasize its

For the date of composition of Book 52, see introduction to Maecenas*

speech before Octavian (52.14-40).
36
M.M. Eistnan, "Dio and Josephus: Parallel Analyses," Latomus 36 (1977),
657-673.
37
Schwartz RE 3.1716; cf. Gabba RSI 71 (1959), 376-378; Manuwald Dio 8-
12, 21-26.
38
See, e.g., Andersen Dio 49-64; Fadinger Begrndung 27-28; Wirth Dio 30-
31,
39
Cf. Flach. A&A 18 (1973), 141-143. ".."
 INTOODUCTIQN 13

continuity into his own times. 40 Assessing the Severan monarchy and
contemporary issues by die yardsticks of the "bask" Augustan monarchy and the
Principate of Marcus Aurelius as a sort of "golden-age" acme, and viewing mem
from his own partisan position, he imports anachronisms into the early
Principate, and at the same time understates the historical evolutionary character
of both the Augustan system and later imperial developments. Thus unhistorical
data, ambiguities, and contradictions, which do not have their origins in the
varying views of his sources, appear time and time again in Books 51-52. 41
Accordingly, in the absence of works that, by revealing how contemporaries
viewed the early Principate, would have served as a corrective, we must
constantly read Dio with one eye on the third century.
Equally significant, Dio's treatment of Octavian himself in Books 51-52,
though favourable, does not conform to an official version of the new regime
vigorously publicized in Augustus' time. In previous books (see Introduction to
Book 50) Dio had depicted the rising heir of Julius Caesar as ambitious, driven
by power, never faltering in his aspirations for monarchy, unscrupulous and
cruel in his march to sole power. But with the turning point of the Battle of
Actium Dio's image of Octavian takes on a new solemn and princely form.
True, he does not entirely suppress unfavourable aspects of Octavian's actions,
which he found in his sources (some of which were antagonistic towards
Octavian, some indeed intensely hostile>. But adverse statements and innuendoes
are now sharply reduced in Dio's account. We find an ambivalent acceptance of
Octavian, criticism together with acknowledgement of his constitutionalism,
moderation, superb management, and great achievements.42
This double-edged treatment of the first princeps43 has been masterfully
elucidated by Manuwald's acute analysis of Dio's conception of Augustus. Dio -
presents Augustus in general in a favourable light, as imperial role-model. Yet
he does not, either in his selection of sources or in his presentation, adhere to an
"official" version of events, but rather at times follows some pro-republican
tradition critical of Octavian. Dio does not exculpate Octavian for his
revolutionary ruthlessness. This negative view of Octavian in his march to
power stems from Dio's understanding of Realpolitik in high human affairs.

40
Cf. Hammond TAPhA 63 (1932), 88-102; M.F.A. Brok, review of Millar
Study, in Mn 20 (1967), 194-195.
41
Cf. Manuwald Dio 6-7, 25-26, 275.
42
See Fadinger Begrndung 333-336; N.A. Maschkin, Zwischen Republik und
Kaiserreich (Leipzig,-1954), 328-330; van Stekelenburg Redevoeringek 121-134;
Trnkte WS 82 (1969), 128; cf. Millar Study 83-102,
43
M.A. Giua, "Augusto nel libro 56 della Storia roroana di Cassio Dione,"
Athenaem 61 (1983), 441-450, 455-456.
14 BTOtODUCTiON

His model in this regard wasThucydides, and he found the Thucydidean view of
human nature and political behaviour confirmed by observation of events and
historical figures in his own time. Dio distrusts official propaganda (more
rampant under the Principate, as he notes at 53.19.3), and he seeks through his
History to unmask the mighty, as a lesson for his own times and the future.44
The shift to a favourable evaluation of Octavian has been variously placed:
at the beginning of Book 51' (after the victory at Actium), at the beginning of
Book 53 (the abolition of the residues of the triumvirate), and at 53.17-19 (the
settlement of 27). Some surmise that Dio v en turned to a new, pro-Augustan
source. There is greater merit in the view that the shift in toneresultedfrom his
own ferventreactionto the inception of the monarchy, a system to which he was
ideologically committed but which he saw was in process of substantive
transformation in the third century. ^

DIO AND THE THIRD CENTURY

Dio brought to his task as historian the education and experience of a well-
informed, sophisticated senator with a long career in diversified posts in the
imperial administration. He moved in die highest circles of Roman government
and society under seven emperors, from Commodus to Severus Alexander. In
his History he assumed, as it were, the role of self-appointed spokesman of the
senatorial order of the third century, a time when, he lamented, the Principate had
taken an ominous turn "from a monarchy of gold to one of iron and rust"
(71.36.4). While Livy looked back nostalgically to the earlier glories of the
Roman Republic, Dio's feet were solidly planted in his own times, and his mind
was saturated with the political and intellectual dilemmas of the third century. In
the forefront were his concerns not only for the empire, but also for the
senatorial order.
Dio was-motivated by an intense awareness of die great crisis of the Roman
Empire, and of a general transformation in process. To Dio history was a usable
past that offered guidance to an understanding of the present.45 And he strove to
set forth his own predilections^ in both explicit and implicit form, formulated
with a strong ideological base.46 An analysis of Dio's portrayal of the events of
his own time shows that the major concerns in his thinking were the following:

44
Manuwald Dio 12-21, 273-284.
45
G. AlfSldy, "The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries,"
GRBS 15 (1974), 92-93, 102; Gabba, in Millar & Segal Augustus 70-71; cf. M.
St
4fi ' ed"' Greek and La,in Autfiors on Jews and Judaism 2 (Jerusalem, 1980), 347.
46
See, e^., Fadinger Begrndung 27-28; Miliar Study 83-118; Manuwald Dio
279-282.
 INTRODUCTION 15

self-serving emperors contrasted with the ideal princeps in the shape of Marcus
Aurelius; the corruption of the armies with money, and the indispensability of
discipline in the army and loyalty to princeps and state; an aggressive foreign
policy, military adventurism, and new annexations; the search for military glory
and self-aggrandizement by the emperors (particularly by Septimius Severus),
who cast in the dark the superior accomplishments of subordinates in the
imperial service; fiscal irresponsibility; threats to the preeminence of the ruling
class in the social and economic life "of the state, and to the institutions that
provided for their participation in the governance of the empire. 47
In the parallels from the past that he both discerned and contrived, Dio
doubtless had in mind well-known contemporaries, though it is difficult for us
now to venture to identify the figures. 48 It is fair to say that Dio's History was
a sort of histoire clef. ;

47
The third-century concerns of Dip have been admirably isolated by Berihg-
Staschewski Zeitgeschichte. See also Millar Study 119-173 ("The History of His
Own Time"). . . ! . /
48
Bering-Stasphewski has identified several contemporary figures implicit in
Dio's parallels.
 BOOK 49

INTRODUCTION

Four campaign years are covered by Dio in this book; from the
spring/summer of 36 to the autumn of 33. Out of chronological ordpr is 49.19-
23, where he backtracks to 38 for events in the eastern campaigns, especially
against die Parthians. While Book 49 serves as a prelude to the outbreak of civil
war between the forces of Octavian and Antony, Dio is here jittle concerned with
the political manoeuvring of the principals and the shifting allegiances of their
partisans. He devotes his attention ramer to military operations.
The outlines of the design of a conceptual framework based on sharp
. contrasts can be discerned in this book, in Dio's selection, emphases, and
structuring of events: Octavian's victory over Sextus Pompey in the West
- (49.1.1-11.1) offset by the ignominious defeat of Antony in the East by the
Parthians (49.24-31); the brilliant successes of subordinate marshals
overshadowing the ineffectual leadership of the triumvirs Octavian and Antony:
the generalship of Marcus Agrippa (49.6-10), Octavian's foremost strategist, and
of P. Ventidius (49.19-21), Antony's legatus who won a spectacular victory oyer
the Parthians; die arduously won subjugation of the IUyrian tribes by Octavian
(49.34-38) contrasting with the devious and facile annexation of Armenia by
Antony (49.39.1-40.3); the oriental pomp and dynastic plains, of Antony in
Alexandria in 34-33 (49.40.3-41.3) with its antithesis in me massive programme
of urban upgrading and of expenditures by Agrippa and Octavian for the
convenience and entertainment of the people of the city of Rome (49.42-43).

DIO'S SOURCES FOR BOOKS 49-50:

PLUTARCH AND APPIAN ON THE SAME EVENTS

For Dio's account from the final campaigns with and removal of Sextus
Pompey to die Battle of Actium (1 July 36 to 2 September 31), fi would/be ;
fruitless to hope to determine wim confidence the source or sources upon which
he relied. Eduard Schwartz proposed that Dio had access to Augustus'
18 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49 t

autobiography, as well as other, anti-Augustan, sources, and perhaps Livy1

(though from the exiguous remains in the Periochae he could not discern whether
Dio used Livy or some Mittelquelle). What is certain, however, is that for
these years Dio did not draw heavily from an official version stemming from
Augustan historiography. He presents the conflicts between die Roman dynasts
from a non-Livian perspective (whether, derived from contemporary sources or
with his own original conception of events) as a, ruthless struggle, for sole
power, assessing the motives and behaviour of both Octavian and Antony as
equally self-serving and unscrupulous. But in his. judgement of the entire career
of Octavian/Augustus there is a certain ambiguity, a contradiction of which he is
not patently aware. Despite his portrayal of Octavian as a ruthless aspirant for
absolute power, Augustus was for him die paradigm of the founding father of the
monarchy, and the good king as model for the rulers of his own times.2 The
other substantial accounts of these years are those of Appian (BC 5.96-145 [400^
602]; Illyr. 16-30) and Plutarch (Aut. 37-68). Even if all three used the same
sources (and this is not necessarily so), there are distinct differences in their
accounts. Plutarch's Antony, one of his best lives, highlights different aspects
from Dio because he was writing moral biography, not interpretive political and
military history in Dio's manner. Appian, for his part, stayed close to his
sources, content to give a factual account derived from both pro- and anti-
Augustan sources, with no effort to reconcile them because he was indifferent to
complexities in the distant past.3
Dio's tendency to compress events often leads to superficiality and
distortion. On the Sicilian War, treated by both Appian and Dio, there are
frequent differences in details, Appian's account being often superior to Dio's
because it is more specific and less contracted (see below, on 49.2.1-4.1, and
49.5.3n, 6.1n,.8.1n, and on 49.8.5-11.1 ). 4 With regard to the fate of Sextus
Pompey, Dio's treatment is compressed (49.17.1-18.6), while Appian's is full
and detailed (BC 5.122 [504-505], 133-144 [550-600]), and there are many
divergences between the two (especially in the different versions of the death
warrant on Sextus Pompey). Of Antony's Parthian campaign, Dio's treatment
is, like that of most of our sources, hostile to Antony, one-sided, and over-

1
Schwartz RE 3.1705, 1711, 1714-1715 = Geschichtschreiber 425-426, 434,
438-439.
' See Introduction to Book 50, below; M.A. Giua, "Augusto nel libro 56 della
Storia romaria di Cassio Dione," Athenaeum 61 (1983), 441-450, 455-456.-
E. Hannak, Appianus und seine Quellen (Vienna, 1869), 29; Scardigli
Rmerbiographien 150; E. Gabba, "The Historians and Augustus," in Millar &
Segal Augustus 70.
4
Manuwald Dio 223-225.
 IMRODUCTIN 19
simplified; its tone may well derive, in part, from Augustus' autobiography (see
below, on 49.19.1-22.1, and 49.23-33nn). On the other hand, Plutarch's
account (Ant. 37-51 ) is more extended, more detailed, and more credible, even if
friendly to Antony. An ultimate source for both was the history of the Parthian
campaign written by Q. Dellius, friend and aide to Antony, who participated in
the expedition.5
For Octavian's Illyrian campaign (see below, on 49.34.2-38.4),.the
principal source for both Dio and Appian (lllyr. 14-28) was Augustus' auto-
biography, but here again they differ in details, Appian being more favourable to
Octavian than Dio, and less compressed.6 On Antony's deterioration as the
result of his infatuation with Cleopatra, Appian (BC 5.9 [36]), Plutarch (An/.
25.1), and Dio (51.15.2-4) are all in agreement, though Plutarch emphasizes his
moral failure, Dio his political eclipse (see Introduction to Book 50). 7 Both
Plutarch (Ant. 54.3-5) and Dio (49.41.1-4) give hostile reports on the
"Donations of Alexandria;" the source may be Livy, Augustus' autobiography,
or some intermediate source.8 Further, Dio's account of Antony's war
preparations before Actium (50.6.5-7.3) is similar to Plutarch's (Ant. 56, 61)
but considerably briefer.9 We have argued below (on 50.1J4.3-15.4) that Dio's
account of Antony's strategy at Actium (not based on an official version) is the
soundest interpretation. Finally, the narrative of the Battle of Actium in Dio
(50.31-35) differs in many details from Plutarch's (Ant. 64-66). 10

3
H. Ritter, Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographien der Rmer (Halle, 1865),
142-146; Scardigli Rmerbiographien 147-148. It is., not likely that Dio and
Plutarch used Dellius' monograph on the Parthian War directly (Jacoby FGrH
2B .623-624, 197).
6
A. Mighali, "Le memorie di Auguste in Appiano Illyr34-2&,"\AF LC 21 (1953),
197-217; Manuwald Dio 228-231. \\_
7
Scardigli Rmerbiographien 146. This view of Antofty may have been derived
from Asinius P'ollio's history of the civil wars.
8
Scardigli Rmerbiographien 147-148.
" Scardigli Rmerbiographien 148.
^ The account of Actium may derive from Octavian's autobiography, through
Livy or some intermediate source (Scardigli Rmerbiographien 149). For other
treatments of the sources for this period and the Battle of Actium, see CAH
10.870-876; G. Delvaux, Les sources de Plutarque dans les vies parallles des
Romains (Bruxelles, 1948) [non vidi]; D. Harrington, "The Battle of Actium: A
Study in Historiography," AncW 9 (1984), 59-64, who argues for the credibility
of Dio's and Plutarch's narratives on the Battle of Actium, and mat they agree on
essentials even though they used different sources and wrote with different
perspectives, emphases, and purposes.
20 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

THE YEAR 36 B.C.

In his account of this year Dio, as in many other books, tries to harmonize with
the annalistic tradition of Roman historiography his own penchant for narrative
history and for selected emphases and paradigmatic structuring of events. With
regard to the balance between res internae and res externae, characteristic of
Roman annales, Dio devoted the year 36 largely to narratives of external affairs,
the campaigns against and the flight and death of Sextus Pompey (1.1-14.6 and
17.1-18.5), with brief attention to internal affairs sandwiched between (15.1-
16.2). The phrase "in the same year" at 16.2, characteristic of "end chapters" in
annales (as, for example, in Livy and Tacitus), may betray an annalistic source
used here by Dio.
V

1.1-11.1: VICTORY OVER SEXTUS POMPEY (cf. Map 1 )

1,1 -2.1 PRELIMINARIES TO THE BATTLE OF MYLAE

The major event in the western Mediterranean in 36 B.C. was the final struggle
with and decisive defeat of Sextus Pompey. For the city of Rome this meant
not only relaxation of war measures but especially the resumption of the normal
schedule of grain shipments, on which the capital depended for its staple food.
With Lepidus also out of the way, Octavian declared euphorically but
precipitately that the end of the civil wars had come (App. BC 5.130 [542]; cf.
Dio 49.15.3n). See CAH 10.62-65.

1.1 x x e v o a v : Of the two consuls ordinarii of 36 (cf. 49.24.1), L.

Gellius Poplicola (RE 13.1003-1005 = Gellius 18 [Mnzer]), a partisan of
Antony, was son of Polla and half-brother of M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus.
Notorious as a profligate youth and political trimmer (Dio 47.24.3-6), he
commanded a wing of Antony's fleet at the Battle of Actium, after which he
disappears from history. M. Cocceius Nerva (PIR 2 C 1224) served under L.
Antonius in the Bellum Perusinum (41-40), and then under Antony in the East.
We do not know when he went over to Octavian (cf. Sen. Clem. 1.10.1:
Sallustium et Cocceios et Dellios...ex adversariorum castris conscripsit); he
reappears later as one of the XVviri sacris faciundis in the Ludi Saeculares of 17
B.C.
x6 xe vawciK&v 4|Toi|iaaTO: "the fleet was readied." The grand
strategy of Octavian Campaign involved a three-pronged synchronized assault
on Sicily: by Octavian and Agrippa from Portus Iulius With the major effective
 1.1-11.1: VICTORY OVER SEXTOS POMPEY (36 B.C.) 21
in ships of the line; Statilius Taurus (see 49.14.6n) from Tarentum with 102
ships; and Lepidus (reluctantly, emphasizes Dio) from Africa with sixteen
legions, 5000 Numidian-Carthaginian horse, seventy warships, and a thousand
transports (Appian [BC 5.98 (406)] specifies only twelve legions of Lepidus:
four were destroyed en route). On the other side, Sextus Pompey commanded ten
legions and 300 warships. Though the decisive defeat of Sextus was
administered at sea (in the two naval battles of Mylae and Naulochus),
Octavian's strategy was to transport his infantry for battle on Sicilian soil.
Sextus, inferior in manpower and ships, appears to have pursued a largely
defensive strategy. Basing himself at Messana as the key to Sicily, he fortified
the Lipari Islands to the north, the island of Cossyra (modern Pantelleria), 100
km southwest of Sicily, and Lilybaeum (modern Trapani) in western Sicily.,
On the strategy and forces of Octavian and Sextus Pompey, see
Gardthausen Augustus 1.256-278; J. Kromayer, "Die Entwicklung der rm-
ischen Flotte vom Seeruberkriege des Pompeius bis zur Schlacht von Actium,"
Philologus 56 (1897), 450-458; Hadas Sextus 123-147; O U / 10.55-63 (by
M.P. Charlesworth); RE 21.2213-2250 = Pompeius 33 {Miltner); Rodgers
Warfare 503-513; M.I. Finley, Ancient Sicily to the Arab Conquest (New
York, 1968), 148-150; Gabba Appian 165-166 (on BC 5.97 [405]).
Dio does not mention the traditional lustratioth solemn, formal,
ritualistic ceremonyof Octavian's fleet at Portus Iulius (App. BC 5.96 [401])y
Other differences at this point between Dio and Appian Include the following.
Dio writes that Octavian set out from Baiae, Appian (5.97 [403]) from
Dicaearchia (Puteoli, modern Pozzuoli). These two cities, on the northern arm
of the Gulf of Naples, were only 5 km apart, and the new military harbour of
Portus Iulius lay between them. Dio localizes the harbour at Baiae (48.49.5-
51.5), with Agrippa's and Octavian's headquarters at'the fashionable seaside
resort of Baiae. .
TO ap voTti: "when spring began." Appian {BC 5.97 [404])
specifies 1 July as the date of the beginning of Octavian's operation, coordinated
with those of Statilius Taurus and Lepidus. Dio's "when spring began" (with
which Suet. Aug. 16.1 accords: cum hieme tota copias exercuissef) is not at
variance.with Appin's date of 1 July (as is presumed by Holmes Architect 113
n5, followed by Hadas Sextus 123 w8). Dio followed the Greek convention,
which he found in Thucydidean usage (Thuc. 2.2.1; 6.94.1; 7.15.2, 17.1,. 19.1),
of indicating the military season as the beginning of spring, which was
presumed to include the summer. On Dio's usage, cf. 56.1.1. See A.W.
Gomme, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides 3 (Oxford, 1956), 699-715
("Note on Thucydides.''Summers and Winters'").
22 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
On the crowding of all the events of the Sicilian campaign of 36 into about
two months, see Appendix 2: "Duration of the Operations Against Sextus
Pompey in 36 B.C."

1.2 t v OKOtqt&v: Dio here hastens to emphasize the superiority of

Octavian's ships as a decisive factor, in this respect betraying, directly or
mediately, an origin for his account favourable to Octavian (cf. the similar
comparison of the fleets of Antony and Octavian at the Battle of Actium, 50.32).
xpyov epov: Servius, on Vergil Aen. 8.693 (turritis puppibus),
claims for Agrippa the invention of hoc genus turrium at Actium. But such
"towers" were already installed on Hellenistic warships. Cf. Rodgers Warfare
514-516; J.H. Thiel, Studies on the History of Roman Sea-Power in Republican
Times (Amsterdam, 1946), 432-447; Gabba Appian 180, on BC 5.106 [438].
V
1.3 xElu<*>v Jiyo: The storm that struck Octavian's ships at Capo
Palinuro on the west coast of Lucania occurred on 3 July (App. BC 5.98 [408];
cf. Vell. Pat. 2.79.3). According to Appian (BC 5.99 [411]), Octavian lost six
heavy warships, twenty-six lighter ships of the line, and many Liburhian craft.
On the question of the use of Liburnian vessels, noted for their speed, see below,
50.31 -35 (at the Battle of Actium).

1.3-5, MT|V(Z: Sextus Pompey relied mainly on a general staff of five

lieutenants: three Greek freedmen in his naval commandDemochares,
Apollophanes, and Menas (or Menodorus)and two Roman legionary
commanders, Tisienus Gallus and L. Plinius Rufus (cf. ILS 8891). In Sextus'
entourage were also: Cornelius Lentulus Cruscellio, Q. Nasidius, Cassius of
Parma, Sentius Saturninus Vetulo, Q. Minucius Thermus, C. Antistius
Reginus, C. Fannius, and L. Scribonius Libo (his father-in-law). M. Titius had
gone over to Antony after the pact of Misenum. See Gabba Appian 166-167,
224-225,232-233.

1.4 TpiTjpei yevSavto(i6Xov: "sham desertion of triremes." Dio's

compression of his sources often results in lack of clarity, as here. This must
mean that units of Octavian's fleet went over to Menas, either by prearrangement
with him, or with intent to destabilize his naval force. In any case, this
manoeuvre caused him to bring over his ships, together with the "deserters," and
thus add critical strength to Octavian 's fleet.
Menas (RE 15.774-775 =* Menas 3 [Modrze]), whom Hada& (Sextus 122)
calls "the shrewdest seaman of his time," of Anatolian origin, was a freedman of
Pompey the Great. He had previously defected to Octavian, who had elevated
 1.1-11.1: VICTORY OVER SEXTOS POMPEY (36 B.C.) 23
him tos equestrian status (48.45.7), and then returned to Sextus. Dio puts the
second defection of Menas ifr-36 after the storm of 3 July; Appian (fiC 5.100-
102 [416-426]), with greater credibility, dates it after the repairs to the ships.
Both Appian and Dio here (1.4) state that Octavian no longer trusted him; but
Menas served the next year under Octavian in the Illyrian campaign, where he
met his death (see 49.37.6).

1.5 xac...ice%ovT|icu{a<; VoS: Appianr (BV5.99 [412]) estimates that

Octavian needed thirty days to repair the ships, and that h even considered
postponing the campaign to the following summer. But the scarcity of grain in-
Italy did not brook delay, and the ships were repaired in record time (App. BC
5.99 [413]). It is rather arbitrary, because of Appian's specification of thirty
days, to date the Battle of Mylae in the first half of August, .as some do. It may
have taken place at the end of July (see 49.2.1-4.In, and Appendix 2, "Duration
of the Operations Against Sextus Pompey in 36 B.C.").
-cov ScXov TOV tpiripita f|Xeu8pa>oe: "he freed the slaves
on the triremes." These "galley slaves" may be different from the 20,000 to
whom Octavian, before the campaign began, granted Roman citizenship to row
in the'fleet (according to Suet. Aug. 16.1; cf. Dio 48.49.1). Is Dio inaccurate
in placing "the'mass manumission after the storm, or are these from a new
mobilization of slaves to replace men lost in the storm in July? On the
Romans' use of slaves in war see also 47.27.2; 48.34.4; W.L. Westermann, The
Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia, 1955), 67; RE
Supp. 6.961 = Sklaverei (Westermann); N. Rouland, Les esclaves romains en
temps de guerre (Bruxelles, 1977), 86-88; H. Khne, "Zur Teilnahme von
Sklaven und Freigelassenen an den Brgerkriegen der Freien im I. Jahrhundert v.
u. Z. in Rom," StudClas 4 (1962) 189-209.
Jtepiveeo: This is an unusual word (cf. the(Aapajnin Thuc. 1.1014,
where it has the sense of "supernumerary") for the |iore common ejufkrcm,
"marines." With Dio's ajteKoVuuTiaav cf. also thje hapai in Thuc. 4.25.4.
For additional Thucydidean echoes in Dio's treatment of the storm and the ship
repairs, see Melber Abhandlungen (1891), 210, on Dio and Thuc. 6.104.2;
7.38.2. Appian (BCS.99 [414-415]) adds mat in the interval Octavian "visited"
his new colonies in Italy, went to Tarentum to inspect Taurus' naval force, and
then proceeded to Hipponium (Vibo), where his infantry forces were being
marshalled for transport through the Straits of Messina.

1.6 ... Amopav f\X8e: "he went to Lipara." Sextus Pempey had
fortified Lipara, one of the five Aeolian Islands (App. BC 5.97 [405]). Dio
implies that somehow Agrippa succeeded in occupying it at this time. Appian
24 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
(BC 5.105 [433-435]) is more specific: he states that Octavian crossed with his
entire fleet (an overstatement) from Vibo to Strongyle (modem Stromboli), the
northernmost island of the group, and left Agrippa in command; and that
Agrippa (presumably having occupied Lipara) took Hiera (modern Volcano), the
southernmost of the Aeolian Islands, which he made his base of operations.

2.1 Anuoxo:pT|v: Demochares (RE 4.2867-2868 = Demochares 7

[Mnzer]), who is likely to have been a freedman of the Pompeii, has been
identified with Papias (App. BC 5.104 [432}; cf. RE 18.3.966 = Papias 1
[Mnzer]; CAH 10.60 n2; Gabba Appian 177). Dio does not mention here
Apollophanes, a lieutenant of Sextus involved in the manoeuvres (cf. App. BC
5.105 [436]; Suet. Aug. 16.3); he does appear elsewhere in Dio 48.47-48;
49.10.4.

2.1 -8.4 THE BATTLE OF MYLAE AND ITS AFTERMATH

The date of the Battle of Mylae (modern Milazzo) in northern Sicily is
conjectural: the first half of August is specified by Fitzler-Seeck (RE 10.314 =
Iulius 132) and Miltner (RE 21.2236 = Pompeius 33); but this date, based on
estimating one month for repair of Octavian's ships (see above, 49.1.5n), is
rather mechanically deduced. It may have occurred late in July: see Appendix 2,
"Duration of the Operations Against Sextus Pompey in 36 B.C." The evidence
for the battle, besides Dio, is in Livy Per. 129; Vell. Pat. 2.79; Suet. Aug. 16;
App. BC 5.105-108 [433-449]; Oros. 6.18.26-34.
Sextus Pompey" employed 155 ships, Agrippa about 150 (out of a fleet of
about 300). Dio here (49.2.3) carelessly states that Agrippa committed his
entire fleet at the very beginning of the battle. Appian, on the other hand (BC
5.106 [437]), states that only after Agrippa discovered that Sextus had sent
reinforcements did he summon the rest of his fleet with all speed.
It is noteworthy that Dio here (as well as before the Battle of Naulochus)
omits the usual exhortatio speeches by the leaders on both sides. Moreover, the
accounts of both Dio and Appian are lacking in historical realism: they appear to
have been written as conventional sea battles. One should note the highly
coloured rhetoric, the emphasis on the emotional reactions of the troops on both
sides, both on land and on shipboard, and the comment that the fleets engaged
blind to each other's strength. Especially noteworthy in Dio's account is his
resort throughout to sharp antitheses, in the manner of Thucydides. See, for
example, 49.2.3 Siatpteiv and o-jceu8etv; 49.3.6, the weight and steadiness of
the ships on one side vs. the lightness and rapidity of the movement of the_
other. For echoes of Thucydidean language in Dio's treatment of the last phase
of the war against Sextus Pompey, see Melber Abhandlungen (1891) 215-217;
 1.1-11.1: VICTORY OVER SEXTUS POMPEY (36 B.C.) 25
Hadas Sextus 144 n 84. Contra, E. Gabba (Appiano e la storia delle guerre
civili [Firenze, 1956], 201 n2) cautions against Melber's undervaluing of the
historicity of Dio's testimony merery on die ground that his imitation of
Thucydides results in his straying from historical verity.

3.3 Xp6vq>: This is a difficult reading. Bekker proposed to delete it;

Leunclavius suggests xpvov with rei wXeotov. Perhaps we should read
Xpovq> tivi or TIVI xpvqi (cf. Dio 44.28.1; 47.27.5; Boissevain ad loc.).

3.4 %eip<bv...oi8itpv: For the "iron claw" (grappling iron) in

Thucydides, see 4.25.4; 7.62.3; 7.65.1-2. Dio limits his references regarding
Roman boarding tactics here to the terminology of Thucydides. (On Dio's lack
of technical knowledge of naval warfare, cf. on 49.8.5-11.1.) Appian (BC
5.106 [441], 118 [491], 119 [495]) specifies at Mylae and Naulochus three types
of grappling weapons used in boarding tactics: Kpaice, xepe atnpa, and nie
apjta designed by Agrippa. The xeip ai5n.p& (manus ferrea} was a grappling
iron with hooks, like a hand; the Kpa (corvus, "raven'l) a pole* with a large
hook that was catapulted to seize and draw close enemy ships for boarding; the
'pnaq, was an improved xopa^, the pole being bound with iron to prevent its
being cut. Cf. Gabba Appian 181 (on BC 5.106 [441]).

4.1-4 o4...ice8i^ov: Dio (49.4.1) and Appian (BC 5.108 [445-446])

agree that Agrippa did not pursue theretreatingPompeian vessels after Mylae
because his ships were heavy and slow, and because of the danger on the shoals
to his ponderous ships and the need to rest his troops. Dio emphasizes, as
Agrippa's reason for failure to pursue, that it was not possible to catch up with
the enemy. But the most important factor was the flawed coordination of
strategy by Octavian and Agrippa that resulted in the ensuing defeat of Octavian
by Pompey in the Straits of Messina. One of the principal kirns of Agrippa^
offer of a naval engagement at Mylae was to draw Fbmpey'S ships away from
Messana so that Octavian could bring his infantry across the straits and debark
mem. Appian indeed points out (BC 5.108 [449]) mat Pompey was alerted to
this diversionary tactic, and so hastened back to Messana the same day as the
battle. Dio, however, ignoring or unaware of Pompey's alertness to the
protection of his base at Messana and of Octavian's logistics, attributes the
debacle of Octavian's efforts to secure a beachhead in Sicily to Agrippa's failure
to pursue Pompey. Moreover, the diversionary attempt of Agrippa to disembark
infantry on the northern shore, at Tyndaris, did not have a positive effect, and so
he was compelled to return to his base at Hiera (49.5.1n, 7.4; App. BC 5.109
[449-450], with Gabba's commentary). - '
26 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
But Dio here was more interested in speculating about "human nature"
(4.4: Ta50' oT(o JtqwKe) and in presenting a conventional topos of the
psychology of subordinates in their relations with their superiors, than in
analyzing this complex strategic and tactical situation. Dio was, indeed, the
ultimate heir of Thucydides' conception of human nature as an operative force in
history, his search for the reality lying behind the mask of appearance, and
separation of "real" motives from ostensible ones. In holding forth Agrippa as
the paradigmatic exemplum of the loyal and successful subordinate, generously
rewarded by the man he served, Dio emphasizes me natural fear and jealousy of
those in power, that subordinates may be successful and thus outshine them
(e.g., the relationship of Antony and P. Ventidius [49.21. In], and of Octavian to
M. Licinius Crassus [51.24.4n]). Successful subordinates, like Agrippa,
undertake the difficult tasks, leaving successes to their masters, while those in
power play it safe, seeking easy victories. Dio surely had in mind parallels irom
his own lifetime: for example, the superiority and decisive roles of the generals
of Septimius Severus, the credit for whose victories the Emperor usurped:
Sextius Lateranus, Candidus, Laetus, Anullinus, Probus (75.2.3-4, 3.2). About
Caracalla Dio writes bitterly, "he hated all who excelled in anything" (77.11.5).
Cf. Bering-Staschewski Zeitgeschichte 70-71. See also Appendix 1: "'Human
Nature' in Dio."
It is possible that Dio's speculation about Agrippa's motives here may
come from a source hostile to Octavian, stemming from Antonian propaganda
("some say," according to Dio, but he vehemently rejects such speculation about
Agrippa [49.4.4]). Dio's analysis is in complete accord with his portrayal of
Agrippa as adiutor imperii, the almost mythical model for a right-hand man of
the emperor for his own time. See Roddaz Agrippa 125-126, 503-511.

5.1 KCUVOV TOS aoAiuou: "military opportunity." For the phrase in this
sense, cf. Dio 41:44.2 and Thuc. 3.30.4 (but here H.S. Jones inthe OCT reads
TO Kevov).
Tv 'AvTameicov vemv: On Antony's ships see above 49.1.1;
48.54.2.
Taupouviov: Tauromenium was about 50 km south of Messana, on
the road to Catana. Octavian crossed from Leucopetra (Capo dell' Armi) on the
Calabrian shore (App. AC 5.109 [451]). With Agrippa's effort to create a
beachhead at Tyndaris on the north shore, about 75 km by sea from Messana, it
was planned to cut off Messana in a pincers tactic. The manoeuvre failed
because Agrippa's landing at Tyndaris was aborted. Agrippa had sent news of
the engagement at Mylae to Octavian, who crossed over at dawn the next day and
disembarked his forces. But the sudden arrival of Pompey <VeIl. Pat. 2.79.4:
 1.1-11:1: VICTORY OVER SEXTOS POMPEY (36 B.C.) 27
inopinato Pompeianae classis adventu; App. BC 5.110 [456]: Gaua SoKntov)
in the waters of Tauromenium that very day led to the defeat of Octavian, his
abandonment of his men in Sicily, and his narrow escape to nie mainland. See
Gabba's excellent analysis in Appian 185-192, on BC 5.109-112 [454-470]).

5 3 xo bxkitaiq: Appian's detailed account of the defeat of Octavian (BC

5.109-113 [449-472]) is superior to Dio's. The statement of Dio that Octavian
did not use his infantry (three legions) against Pompey's troops is controverted
by Appian BC 5.110 [457-459]. Pompey did not mount an infantry attack at
once, but used his cavalry, because his foot-soldiers were inexperienced (App.
ibid.).

5.4 T\v ifreipov: Appian specifies the harbour Abala, on the Italian
coast north of Leucopetra, where Messalla was stationed. But ASbala cannot be
identified with certainty. See Gabba Appian 190, on BC 5.112 [466]. Appian
states that he escaped "with one soldier," Suetonius (Aug. 16.3) with one ship.

5.5 ix'v xiva: For the fish omen here as foretelling victory at sea, cf.
Pliny HN 9.55; Suet. Aug. 96.2: pridie quam Siciliensem pugnam classe
committeret (clearly before the Battle of Naulochus).

6.1 6 Kopvcmpimoc: The exploit of Comificius represents another example

of a subordinate successfully overcoming a great problem which his superior
abandoned to him (cf. 49.4. l-4n). The breakthrough of Comificius with the
infantry from Tauromenium to the north coast in the direction of Mylae has been
elevated by Dio into a classic retreat, in the manner of Thucydides' account of
the retreat of the Athenians after the Battle of Syracuse (7J5-86). See A.
Aiello, "La spedizjone di Ottaviano a Tauromenip e la via di ritirata di
Cornificio," in V. Casagrandi, Raccolta di studi di stoitia antica (Catania, 1893),
2.181-264. Appian's account of Comificius' march <JBC 5.113-115 [473-481]>
differs from Dio's in its considerable detail, and is less conventional. Dio
records that Comificius feared a siege at Tauromenium because of shortage of
food; he burned the ships left over from the naval battle and retreatecKwith his
legionaries northward; his forces were harassed by cavalry-and light-armed troops;
the route was beset with enormous difficulties, with rivers to cross; the wounded
were far more numerous than those who died; the retreating column was under
attack for three full days before the pursuers desisted, fearing the approach of a
rescue force. Gabba (Appian 193-195, on BC 5.115 [473-4814)--traces
Comificius' route as follows: up the valley of the Alcantara (= R. Acesines),
through the area of Francavilla and of Mojo, across the Nebrodi mountain chain,
 28 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

descending on Montalbano d'EHcona. The distance between Tauromenium and

Mylae-Tyndaris was about 5 0 km as the crow flies. Appian states that on the
march those without arms were placed in the centre; on the fourth day they
arrived in a region without water, the heat and thirst were intense; there were
many losses, some from drinking water too soon; on that day a relieving force of
three legions sent by Agrippa arrived under command o f O . Laronius (App. BC
5.115 [479]; cf. Dio 49.7.4). Laronius was to become consul suffectus in 33
[MRR 2.414]). Dio's comment at 49.6.4, .naa%ov jiv noXX Kal Seiv,
vTSpciv 5 oSv, is echoed at 56.20.5.
Melber (Abhandlungen [1891] 224-228) attempts to document (not always
appositely) Dio's writing of a conventional retreat in imitation of Thucydides in
style, language, and incidents, singling out words with rare meaning like cbtopoi
(49.6.3; cf. Thuc. 4.32.3) and Kpofia; (49.6.4; cf. Thuc. 4.127.2), and rare
words like JtrjAxoori and po8r\ (49.6.5; cf. Thuc. 4.24.5). N>
L. Cornificius (MRR 2.406; PIR2 C 1503) was consul in 35 and later
governor of Africa, from which he returned to a triumph on 3 December 32.

7.5 v t<p epuuxm: i.e., "marching camp." Cary's translation, "in his
camp," is not accurate.

7.6 JtepoJCfiKOTaTa: "with utter indifference." Here is an instance of

Dio's painting the behaviour of leaders with realism. When the victory was
achieved without Cornificius' troops, Octavian "wrote them off;" when they
succeeded in fighting their way back, he rewarded them.
x Xyavxoq: With this privilege (granted or usurped?) of Cornifi-
ciusriding home from banquets in Rome upon an elephantcompare the
^ special honours to Duillius, victor of the naval battle off Mylae in the First
Punic War, who also returned from banquets accompanied by lighted torches and
the playing of tibiae (Florus 1.18.10; Syme Revolution 238).

8.1 'Apteuioiov: Artemisium (cf. App. BC 5.116 [484]) was a small town
near Mylae, on the Phacelinus River, on the northern coast. By this time
Agrippa had taken Tyndaris, and Octavian had transported his infantry and cavalry
from the mainland to Mylae and Artemisium.
Tioifjvoc: Tisienus Gallus (RE 6A.1480 = Tisienus [Mnzer]) had been
a legatus of L. Antonius in the Perusine War (48.13.2). Dio here backtracks,
out of chronological order, for a brief account of the indecisive confrontation of
Lepidus and Tisienus Gallus in the western part of Sicily, at Lilybaeum. Dio's
account of Lepidus' attack on Lilybaeum is too compressed to provide a credible
 1.1-11.1: VICTORY OVER SEXTUS POMPEY (36 B.C.) 29
treatment; Appian's (BC 5.97-98 [403-408], 104-105 [430-434]) is here superior
to Dio's (Gabba Appian 166).

8.1-3 AxiSo: Dio is here compressing complex events to the point of

obscurity: the storm of 3 July that destroyed some ships, and the attack of
Demochares (= Papias). Compare Gabba Appian 167-168, on BC 5.98 [406].
Dio stresses the mutual hostility of Lepidus and Octavian, in counting the
reasons for Lepidus* delay in joining forces with Octavian: the storm, his
encounter with Demochares, his desire to embarrass Octavian, his purpose to
draw Sextus away from Octavian, so as to deny him military victory. Dio here,
as in die case of Antony and Octavian, stresses fault on both sides: the jostling
for power as the result of aggressive cupido dominandi.

8.5-11.1: THE BATTLE OF NAULOCHUS

For the battle, compare App. BC 5.118-121 [488-503]. Mommsen's complex
argument for a date in late August was accepted by Gardthausen (Augustus
1.274-278; 2.142 n41) and by Miltner (RE 21.2240 = Pompeius 33). But the
evidence for 3 September is decisive: the Acta Arvalium for that date (CIL l 2
p214; Ej2 p51; lit. 13.2.505-506) read: feriae et supplicationes ad omnia
pulvinaria q(uod) e(o) d(ie) Caesar August(us) in Sicilia vicit (also Fasti
Amiternini, CIL l 2 p244). See Hadas Sextus 123 n8, 145-146; RE 10.316 =
Iulius [Augustus] 132 (Fitzler-Seeck); Gabba Appian 202, on BC 5.118 [490];
Holmes Architect 221 ('The Date of the Battle of Naulochus;" cf. 113 ri5); E.
Gabba, "Sesto Pompeo a Nauloco," ROCM 19 (1977), 389-392.
As in die case of die Battle of Mylae, the accounts of Dio and Appian differ
in details. Dio, for example (49.8.4-5), attributes to Octavian the decision to
commit his forces speedily to die decisive battle; Appian (BC 5.118 [489]) suites
that it was Sextus' decision to stake all on a great battle. Melber (Abhndlungen
[1891] 229-236) analyzes Dio's account of the Battle of Naulochus as a
rhetorical topos of a naval battle, a stereotypical, unhfctoricalipatterned account,
heavily indebted to Thucydides in die use of individual words, phrases, and rare
expressions: for example, aneadXevev at 49.8.5, for which cf. Thuc. 1.137.2,
a word used only twice by him; at 49.9.3 ODOxdoei T^C yvjtTi, cf. Thuc.
7.71.1 tpoxaow -ri yvuri. Melber notes odier Conventional naval battles
described by Dio, at 39.40.5-43.5 for example (Melber's devaluing of Dio's
account of Mylae and Naulochus because of borrowings from Thucydides should
be noted: see above on 49.2.1-8.4).
Dio, moreover, had little technical knowledge of a naval engagement. He
does not notice a significant invention of Agrippa, die apna, a long, ironr
protected wooden pole shot by a catapult, wim a claw at me extremity to grip
30 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
the enemy's ships (see 49.3.4n; Reinhold Agrippa 34, 39). On Agrippa's role
in the victory, compare Anon, de Vir. III. 84.4: Sextus ab Augusto per
Agrippam navali proelio victus. Appian (BC 5.121 [503]) says that twenty-
eight of Sextus' ships were sunk, seventeen escaped, and the rest were burned or
captured or wrecked (cf. Vell. PaL 2.79.5: paene omnibus exutus navibus).
Orosius (6.18.29) states that Agrippa sank or captured 163 ships. At any rate,
Sextus is not likely to have had more than 200 ships in all at Naulochus (CAH
10.61 nl).

11.1 puvev: Dio is characteristically selective in details about the flight of

Sextus Pompey. If he is correct, the daughter of Sextus mentioned
anonymously here was the child of Scribonia, daughter of L. Scribonius Libo,
consul in 34 (RE 2A.891 = Scribonius 31 [Mnzer]). (Octavian's first wife,
Scribonia, by whom he had Julia, was Libo's sister.) Did Dio mistake forV
daughter Sextus' sister Pompeia, who was with him in Sicily (Suet. Tib. 6.3)?
Certainly his daughter Pompeia survived him: on the importance of her
descendants and the intricate family relationships of the Scribonii Libones with
the Julio-Claudians, see E.J. Weinrib, "The Family Connections of M. Livius
Drusus Libo," HSCPh 72 (1967), especially 248-249,274-275.
T& vcr t piaxa xftv oaOeiomv xXeo'ooa,: "the most
seaworthy of the ships saved." Appian (BC 5.122 [505]) specifies seventeen
ships; Velleius (2.79.5) reduces this number to "almost no ships;" Florus
(2.18.9) to six or seven.

11.2-14.6: LEPIDUS DEPOSED; DISCIPLINING OF TROOPS

11.2 AxiSo: Appian (BC 5.122-126 [508-523]) gives a more detailed

account of the shifting allegiances of the troops (including Pompey's to Lepidus,
at first) in the mutiny of Messana. The counter-claims of Lepidus and Octavian
were based essentially on military power. The claim attributed by Dio to
Octavian, that "justice is all on his side and in his weapons" (49.12.1), accords
with his picture of the young Caesar as driven by cupido dominandi.

11.3 TT|V xpoVtn,v otDv oi>v<n(iooiav: In 43 B.C., when the

triumvirate was established, Lepidus was assigned all of Spain and Gallia
Narbonensis (46.55.4), but in 40 he was compelled to accept in exchange the
two African provinces (48.20.4, 28.4).

123 irtKaxkxxo\ avxv: The "official" version of the deposition of

Lepidus, who was compelled to resign his triumviral powers, can be found in
 11.2-14.6: LEPIDUS DEPOSED (36 B.C.) 31
Vell. Pat. 2.80; cf. Livy Per. 129: M. Lepidus, ...quum bellum Caesari quoque
inferret, relictus ab exercitu, abrogato triumviratus honore, vitam impetravit
("M. Lepidus, when he waged war on Caesar also, abandoned by his army, his
triumviral office abolished, was granted his life"); ILS 108 (Feriale Cumanum),
line 2: [exer]citus Lepidi tradidit se Caesari. The "official" version simplified the
contest for power to the final desertion of Lepidus'troops to Octavian.

12.4 ^oMCio doT\q: Though Lepidus was compelled to resign his

triumviral powers, he was not shorn of his office as pontifex maximus
(49.15.3), which he kept until his death in 12 B.C.
Siavcav v if) 'IxaXi: Lepidus was confined to Circeii (cf. Suet.
Aug. 16.4) on the south coast of Latium, a little spot cut off from the interior.
The choice of place for "house arrest" was not an act of indulgence on Octavian's
part: the pontifex maximus was required to live in Italy. I In any case, Circeii
was not a harsh place of exile, but rather a resort town with villas (cf. Cic. Ad
Att. 15.10). See RE 3.2566-2567 = Circei (Hlsen).

12.4-5 KoXo0T|aav: Dio states here that, of the partisans of Sextus

Pompey, Octavian punished those of senatorial and equestrian rank, n"Ki\\
oXiyoov, "except a few;" but Appian (BC 5.I27 [527]) states that he granted
pardon to the Pompeian leaders. See below, 50.20.2. With the incorporation of
Sextus' soldiers into his legions, compare the similar action after the Battle of
Actium and the fall of Alexandria (5l.3.1-2n). With regard to the slaves with
Pompey, Dio states that those with no known masters were crucified or impaled
(vaoKoAxjiexv may mean either); Appian (BC 5.131 [545]) recorHsThat
Octavian caused these to be put to death in the cities from which they had fled
(6000, according to Oros. 6.18.33). Augustus himself ki RG 25.1 gave this
version: eo bello servorum, qui fugerant a dominis, suis et} arma contra rem
publicam ceperant, trigintafere millia capta dominis ad supplicium sumendum
tradidi ("In this war of the slaves who had fled fromj their mksters and taken up
arms against the state, I captured almost thirty thousand, and handed them over
to their masters for punishment"). Did this violate die Treaty of Misenum (39
B.C.), whereby slaves who had fled to either side were to be declared free
(48.36.3n; Gabba Appian 218, on BC 5.131 [544])? On the approval of
Octavian's handling of runaway slaves by the conservative elements in Italian
cities, see M. Volponi, Lo sfondo italico detla lotta triumvirate, Pubblicazioni
dell'Istituto di Storia Antica e Scienze Ausiliare dell'Universit di Gehova 13
(Genova, 1975), 146-148, 155-156.
32 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
12.5 t v te x6Xea>v: This must refer to cities in Sicily caught up in
the operations of the civil war. Compare the favoured treatment of Utica in
Africa at this time (49.16.In). Octavian imposed a tribute of 1600 talents on
the island of Sicily (App. BC 5.129 [537]). Diodorus Siculus (16.7.1) says of
Tauromenium that its citizens were expelled and a Roman colony established
there in his time. This is likely to have occurred in 36 B.C. (cf. O. Cuntz, De
Augusto Plinii Geographicorum Auctore [Bonn, 1888], 35; C.A. Oldfather,
Diodorus of Sicily [Loeb] 1 [London, 1933], ix-x). Others, citing Dio 54.7.1
in which he reports, under 21 B.C., that Augustus reorganized Sicily and made
colonies out of some of the citiesdo not rule out the later date: Mommsen CIL
10, p718; M. Sordi, ed., Diodori Sicuti Bibliothecae Liber Sextus Decimus
(Firenze, 1969), 16; cf. Keppie Colonisation 71. On arguments for the earlier
date for the colony of Tauromenium, in the 30s, see CR. Rubincam, "The
Chronology of the Punishment and Reconstruction of Sicily By
Octavian/Augustus," AJA 89 (1985), 521-532; on the later date, in the 20s,
S.C Stone, "Sextus Pompey, Octavian and Sicily," AJA 87 (1983), 11-22.
Stone details also the archaeological evidence for the depopulation and
destruction of centres of Pompeian support (e.g., Tauromenium, Morgantina, the
Catana plain), and the transformation of the island, from 36 to 32 B.C., into an
agricultural adjunct of Italy (cf. Dio 50.6.6n). Rubincam objects, with
qualification in details and chronology.

13.1-14.2 oi axpaxi&xai axaaiaeav: On the mutiny, and the

bounty given to the soldiers in the field, cf. Appian BC 5.128-129 [528-536].
On the lack of discipline and arrogance of soldiers in the civil-war armies, see,
e.g., P. Jal, "Le 'soldat des guerres civiles' Rome la fin de la Rpublique et
au dbut de l'Empire," Pallas 11 (1962), 1-2,7-27. In September 36, Octavian
had under his command in a small area of northeast Sicily the combined forces of
himself, Sextus Pompey, Lepidus, and even some Antonian troops. These
comprised a total of forty-five legions (Orosius 6.18.33 gives the number as
forty-four), together with some 25,000 horse, 27,500 light-armed auxiliaries, and
600 warshipsone of the largest concentrations of military power in all of
Roman, indeed of world history. See I. Hahn, "Die Legionsorganisation des
zweiten Triumvirats," AAntHung 17 (1969), 218-219; I have not seen W.C.G.
Schmitthenner, The Armies of the Triumviral Period: A Study of the Origins of
the Roman Imperial Legions (Diss. Oxford, 1958).
Dio's account of the mutiny in 36 is unusually detailed, less compressed
from his source(s) than usual. Here, as elsewhere, he shows special interest in
the discipline of Roman soldiers. For he was deeply concerned with the
unruliness and demands of the soldiery of his own times (cf. Bering-Staschewski
 11.2-14.6: LEPIDUS DEPOSED (36 B.C.) 33
Zeitgeschichte 68-69,75, 84-85, 100-101,122-123), and was traumatized by his
own perilous experience with the Praetorian Guard, who threatened him because
of the severity of his disciplining of the troops under his command when he was
governor of Pannonia Superior (cf. 49.36.4n; 80.4.2-5.1). Hence he praises
Octavian here for what he considers to be his effective handling and curbing of
the troops, even his cunning. Dio's generalization against appeasement of the
troops has a contemporary ring: "A commander ought not to do anything
contrary to his judgement under compulsion by the soldiers." Cf. Livy Per.
131 : Caesar seditionem veteranorum cum magna pernicie motam inhibuit. Dio
singles out for emphasis as good disciplinarians also: Caesar (42.55.1-3), Cn.
Domitius Calvinus and Crassus (48.42.1-3), and Agrippa (54.11.3-5).
On the mutiny of 36< see P.A. Brunt, "The Army and the Land in the
Roman Revolution," JRS 52 (1962), 69-86, esp. 81-82; W. Schmitthenner,
"Politik und Armee in der spten Republik," HZ 190 (1960), 15-16. '

14.2-3 TO t e dceiuivoi: "to those discharged." On the rewards to

veterans at this time, cf. Appian BC 5.129 [535-537]^ Cary in the Loeb
mistranslates itXrtv ttovrcpotpravas "save to the first of them." Dio means
"except in the case of those previously discharged" (se. xpeiuvcDv), i.e.,
evocati, recalled veterans (cf. App. BC 3.47 [191]). His normal term for
evocatus is vKXnto or fiovxato (45.12.3; 55.24.8n; 78.5.3). At 45.12.3
(TO TV f|0\)oK<rt(v owroiua), Dio, from an imperial perspective, is careless
in lumping together the veterans who joined Octavian in 44 and die emergency
soldiers who came forth to support him as dux privatus (see J. Linderski,
"Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae : The Genera Militiae and the Status of
Octavian," JRS 74 [1984], 78).
The various categories considered by Octavian in 36 were: those who served
in the campaign at Mutina (43 B.C.); those with ten years of service; and those
who had participated in the victorious sea-battles at Mylae and Naulochus
(Appian [BC 5.129 (534)] specifies only men wio served at Mutina and
Philippi; cf. Keppie Colonisation 70). Of particular interest is the offer to
veteran centurions (Appian [BC 5.128 (531)] adds tribuni militum), to make
them members of the city council of their native municipalities. The purpose
was to separate the officer corps from the mutineers, but all rejected the offer,
demanding land in colonies, not dignitas (cf. Keppie Colonisation 105). Cf.
Octavian's edict on the privileges of veterans granted in uie 30s (Berlin Papyrus
No. 628; FIRA 1, 56; Lewis & Reinhold 1.392 153). On Octavian's
disposition of the veteran problems after Naulochus, see E. Gabba, "Ricerche
Sull' esercito professionale romano da Mario ad Augusto," Athenaeum 29
(1951), 247; R.E. Smith, Service in the Post-Marian Roman Army
34 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
(Manchester, 1958), 68-69; K.A. Raaflaub, "The Political Significance of
Augustus' Military Reforms," Roman Frontier Studies 12 (1979), BAR
International Series 71 (iii) (1980), 1011-1012; Keppie Colonisation 69-73. On
Octavian's long-range aim to "depoliticize" the armies and his upgrading of the
social status of centurions, see Kienast Augustus 50-51. Cf. Buchheim
Orientpolitik 47-48 ("Octavian nach seinem Sieg ber Sex. Pompeius").

14.3 otavov xpvooov: On the gold naval crown to Agrippa, Livy

(Per. 129) says it was "an honour never before bestowed on anyone else," Dio
that it was "never before or after given to anyone else." According to Pliny the
Elder, a corona navalis had been awarded to M. Varro (HN 7.115; 16.7).
Agrippa's crown, variously called corona navalis, corona classica, and corona
rostrata, is highlighted as a unique decoration in Roman history (Sen. Ben.
3.32.4; Vell. Pat. 2.81.3). Its uniqueness consisted in its being of gold. Xiee
Reinhold Agrippa 42-44.

14.4-5 Tfrv Se xcbpav: Land assignments to veterans were not made at

this time, but "not much later." Campania appears to have been a favoured
place: Octavian assigned land to some veterans there (Vell. Pat 2.81.2: adiectum
supplementum Campanae coloniae; on the closeness of Dio's narrative here to
the text of Velleius, see Woodman Velleius 206-207). In the case of Capua,
Octavian purchased for veterans public land belonging to the city of Capua, and
in return assigned to the city the revenues from Cnossus in Crete, in the sum of
1,200,000 sesterces annually, and provided it with an aqueduct (cf. CIL 10.3938,
for a slave of the colony with the tide arc[arius] Cretae). These grants to Capua
may have been compensation for Capuan land transferred to the new colony at
Puteoli (see Keppie Colonisation 70-71, 143-148). Presently the colony at
Capua received its standard name Colonia Iulia Felix Augusta Capua. (Dio, it
should be noted, had first-hand knowledge of Campania and had a villa at Capua:
cf. 76.2.1.)
Among the other colonies established by Octavian after the Sicilian War,
there was one apparently in Sardinia, at Turns Libisonis; and perhaps one in the
Lipari Islands. See CAH 10.63; Gabba Appian 213-214 (on BC 5.129 [534-
535]). On the Vipsanii in Sicily and the estates of Agrippa there, see V.
Casagrandi, "Ricordi di M. Vipsanio Agrippa in Sicilia," Raccolta di studi di
storia antica (Catania, 1893), LI27-138; Reinhold Agrippa 10, 42, 46, 129;
Roddaz Agrippa 135-136; S.C. Stone, "Sextus Pompgy, Octavian and Sicily,"
AJA 87 (1983), 11-22. '
 11.2-14.6: LEPIDUS DEPOSED (36 B.C.) 35
14.6 -ri|v Aiunv Kottpav: On the division of Africa in 46 B.C. into
two provincesVetus (once Carthaginian territory) and Nova (Numidia)-see
Dio 43.9.4. Cf. A. Pallu de Lessen, Fastes des provinces africaines..sous la
domination romaine (Paris, 1896-1901; rpt. 1969), 63.
ZtaxiXlou Torpov: On T. Statilius Taurus, second to Agrippa as one
of Octavian's great marshals, see App. BC 5.97 [403]; RE 3A.2199-2203 =
Statilius 34 (Nagl); MRR 2.403, 413, 419, 422, 426. Formerly a partisan of
Antony, Taurus commanded a squadron of ships sent by Antony to Octavian
against Sextus Pompey; this was Taurus' first great military command. On his
triumph ex Africa, see 49.42.3n. He was consul (suffectus) in 37, and consul
for a second time in 26. For his distinguished career, see also Syme Revolution
Index.

15.1-16.2: OCTAVIAN IN ROME: HONOURS, MEASURES

15.1 T<X i e xfiv Ti) pan.vtbv axaaiaavta: Cf. p. 41.

oi v tip &0tei...a{T<p...5<DKav: On the eulogies and honours
voted to Octavian between 3 September and his arrival in Rome before 13
November 36 B.C. (EJ2 p34, Fasti Triumphales), cf. App. BC 5.130-131 [538-
543]; and for the similar accolade after Actium and the taking of Alexandria, see
51.19.l-23.ln. The honours accorded him by "those in the city" were bestowed
by both the Senate (49.16.1) and the People.
itpoefipiav: If Dio is accurate about proedria (the privilege of a front
seat), this may have been a reaffirmation by the Senate of an honour likely, to
have been previously granted to him as triumvir (cf. 42.19.3 for a similar
honour to Caesar).
p' uncou oeXdoav. Dio's formulation for the ovatio granted to
Octavian, "to enter the city on horseback," is credible. Such "minor triumph"
was held when proper conditions for a major triumph were lacking, such as vic-
tory won without formal declaration of war, as in thisjcase. Traditionally in an
ovatio the general entered Rome on foot, wearing afciyrtlewreath, walking at
the head of a procession of the Senate. Caesar was allowed a laurel wreath, and
Octavian followed Caesar's precedent. The same form was used in the ovatio of
40 B.C. after the reconciliation with Antony at Brundisium (48.31.3). Cf. L.
Schumacher, "Die imperatorischen Akklamationen der Triumvirn und die
auspicia des Augustus," Historia 34 (1985), 191-192.
The major and minor triumphs were noted by Augustus himself in AG 4.1,
a passage that requires reconstruction in both the Latin text and the. Greek
translation. Augustus' own formulation was: [Bis] ovans triumphavi et tri[s
egi] curulis triumphos. The Greek version has: At [ ] xpi p'
36 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
pumoc. Dio provides the most satisfactory evidence for restoring the Greek
as: Ai [q>* mtov eopuiueuoa Kal] Tpl q>' opuaro (see J.W. Humphrey
and M. Reinhold, "Res Gestae 4.1 and the Ovations of Augustus," ZPE 57
[1984], 60-62). By the second century the tradition was confused, and the
antiquarian Aulus Gellius (5.6.27) could write: dissensisse veteres scriptores
accipio ("I find that the older writers disagreed," some saying "on foot," others
"on horseback"). While we do not have an "official" translation into Greek of
ovans during the Augustan period, Dio's <p' 'ncov (e.g., 48.31.3) or nl
Ktayto (e.g., 54.33.5) documents the norm after Caesar.
oTtoOat: Extraordinary indeed was the honour he accepted of a
banquet with his wife and children on the Capitolium annually on 3 September,
as a day of thanksgiving (cf. Ht. 13.2.505-506). The great sacrament of the
lovis epulum, in which images of Jupiter on a couch and Juno and Minerva on
chairs were feasted, was held on the Capitolium on 13 September annually\(cf.
Val. Max. 2.1.2; CIL 6.2295; 9.4769; 10.6638). See W. Warde Fowler, The
Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic (London, 1899), 215-219.
Presumably this tradition was maintained separately from the honour to
Octavian. On the similar honour given to Antony at this time, together with
Octavia and their children, in the Temple of Concord, see 49.18.6. The honour
of wearing the laurel wreath on all occasions is identical with the grant to Julius
Caesar in 45 B.C. (Dio 43.43.1; cf. Suet. Caes. 45.2).

15.2 Kdtoxo: Dio's story of the "seized" soldier has the tone of a
rhetorical topos with folktale characteristics, symbolizing the yearning for peace.
Did Dio find the event in the official list of prodigies? On Dio's belief in
prodigies, see Millar Study 77.

153 iieeio: The almost casual comment by Augustus on his ovations in

the Res Gestae (see 49.15. In) can be supplemented by the Fasti Triumphales
Capitolini (///. 13.1.86-87, 569; EJ2 p34: Imp. Caesar divif. Cf. II, ///vir r. p.
c. II, ovans ex Sicilia idibus Novembr.) and Fasti Barberiniani (lit. 13.1.342-
343). Octavian reached Rome shortly before 13 November, the date of the
Ovatio ceremony (cf. Suet. Aug. 22: bis ovans ingressus est urbem post
Philippense et rursus post Siculum bellum). He maintained the proprieties as
holder of the imperium by addressing the assembly of the people "outside the
Pomerium" (cf., e.g., 39.63.4 [Pompey]; 39.65.1 [Gaius Pomptinus]; 41.16.1
[Julius Caesar]; 55.2.2 [Augustus]).
xoptJKOTo: Just as later, after his return to Rome in 29 (51.20.4n), so
at this time he accepted only some of the honours voted to him. Dio was aware
that, in the profusion of honours voted for Roman dynasts and the early
 15.1-16.2: OCTAVIAN IN ROME (36 B.C.) 37
emperors, they chose at rimes to accept only some of them. For example, of the
spate of honours proposed in writing by senators at the time of the death of
Augustus in A.D. 14, Tiberius selected oca fkrXcto ("those he wished:"
56.47.1). Similarly, of the honours voted to the dead Germanicus in A.D. 19,
Tiberius [ex omnibus iis] honoribus quos habendos esse censebat senatus,
legerit... ("out of all rhose honours which the Senate had voted be held, Tiberius
should chose..."): see J. Gonzalez, "Tabula Siarensis, Fortunales Siarenses et
Municipia Civium Romanorum," ZPE 55 (1984), 58 (frg. 1.4-8 of the
inscription).
For the ovatio of 36, Appian (BC 5.130 [541-542]) states that Octavian
accepted the annual thanksgiving on the day of his victory (cf. Dio 49.15.1n),
the ovation, and a golden statue in the Forum on a columna rostrata (decorated
with beaks of captured ships, reminiscent of the Column of Duillius [eos. 260
B.C.] set up for the victory against the Carthaginians over two centuries earlier).
Appian also records the inscription on the column voted to Octavian (he gives a
Greek translation): TTTV eipT|vr)v oTaouxouvrtv K itoAAo ouvirrtoe xatd
TE -fyy Kal SXaoaav ("He restored peace which for a long time had been
disturbed on land and sea"). The Latin text may berestoredas follows: pacem
diu turbatam terra marique restituit.
Tv te 9600V: Regarding Octavian's remission of sums due to the
public treasury, Dio specified ipopovTOVx xrv anoYpoupav ("tribute from the
tax rolls"), and other debts owed the treasury. These latter would appear to be
emergency war imposts (Appian calls them eioopai, "special taxes"). On the
remission of certain xXr\ (vectigalia), and the distinction between ppo and
TXO, see Dio 38.1.5; 52.28.1-4n; 52.29.1. In Dio's terminology for taxes,
(ppo = tributum, on landed and other personal property, and xefa\ = vectigalia,
indirect taxes. Dio* s details here are questionable. He implies erroneously that
Italians at this time paid tributum. Appian (BC 5.130 [540])is more precise:
delinquent taxes and debts owed to the treasury by tax farmers and by holders of
public contracts were the ones remitted. On the war jaxes for the conflict with
Sextus Pompey, see Dio 50.10.4-6n, 16.3n; 51.3.3n; R.T. Ridley, "The
Economics of Civil War," Helikon 20-21 (1980-1981), 38-40.

15.3 xov AexiSov ieponrvrjv: On Octavian's reluctance to usurp the

office of Pontifex Maximus held by Lepidus, cf. 54.15.7-8, 27.2; App. BC
5.131 [543]; RG 10.2: pontifex maximus nefierem in vivi conlegae mei locum,
populo id sacerdotium dfrente mihi quod pater meus habuerat, recusavi ("I
refused to become pontifex maximus in place of my colleague while he was still
alive, when the people offered me this priesthood which my father had held").
38 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
15.4 8ie8p6tjoov: Were there rumours, found in his sources, about
Octavian's sham magnanimity in this remission of debts to the treasury, or was
Dio retrojecting here rumours of a similar kind about remission of taxes by
contemporary emperors? See Gabba Appian 216-217 (on BC 5.130 [540]).

15.5 oiic{av...ic tow THiooiov: For the decree of the Senate on behalf
of Julius Caesar, enabling him to live in a domus publica (i.e., state property),
see Dio 43.44.6. For the dedication of the Temple of Apollo on the Palatine by
Octavian in 28, see 53.1.3n. The house of Augustus on the Palatine, built later
next to the Temple of Apollo, was not a domus publica (cf. Vell. Pat. 2.81.3,
and Woodman Velleius 208). However, in the year A.D. 3, when this house
was destroyed by fire, it was rebuilt with public and private funds and then was
made public property, to which was attached the name Palatium (Dio 53.16.5n;
55.12.4-5n; Suet. Aug. 57.2). For Augustus' house, see G. Carettnj, Das
Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin (Mainz, 1983).
K e p a u v : Cf. Suet. Aug. 29.3: Templum Apollinis in ea parte
Palatinae domus excitavit, quam fulmine ictam desiderari a deo haruspices pro-
nuntiarant.
i \fyiz p?<p u^xe X7<p TA opieaSav. The unprecedented
privileges granted to Julius Caesarsacrosanctitas for life by decree of the
Senate and the right to sit with tribunes on their subselliawere given to
Octavian also at this time. Bauman (RhM 124 [1981], 167-168) approves the
accuracy of Dio's statement on the grant of sacrosanctity to Octavian; it was
bestowed by a legal formula expressed by analogy to the power of the tribunes,
not as a specific separate authorization parallel to their power. For the grant of
sacrosanctitas to Octavian, see the discussion on tribunicia potestas in Appendix
13, "The Tribunician Power of Octavian/Augustus (51.19.6-7);" Weinstock
Julius 220-221; Holmes Architect 221-223 ("When Was the Tribunician Power
First Conferred Upon Octavian?"); P.L. Strack, "Zur tribunicia potestas des
Augustus," Klio 32 (1939), 358-381; Gabba Appian 220-222 (on BC 5.132
[548], with full bibliography); Grant Imperium 449-450.

16.1 MeooXav TV QaXpiov: M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus (cf.

49.1.In, 38.3n; 51.7.2-7n), proscribed by Antony (47.11.4) but saved by
intervention of relatives (App. BC 4.38 [159-161]; 5.113 [471]), commanded
troops at Philippi for the "Liberators," but went over first to Antony, then to
Octavian (ea 37/36 at the latest), and fought in Sicily against Sextus Pompey.
As a reward he received the augurate (for life), and later became consul, in place
of Antony in 31 {RE 8A.131-137 = Valerius 261 [Hanslik]).
 15.1-16.2: OCTAVIAN IN ROME (36 B.C.) 39
With regard to the number of augurs, Sulla had increased the membership
in this college and that of the pontifices to fifteen (Livy Per. 89), and Caesar the
membership of augurs, pontifices, and XVviri sacris faciundis to sixteen
(42.51.4). This served as precedent for adding supernumerary priests to the
higher state priestly colleges (cf. 51.20.3n). Obviously in 36 there was no va-
cancy. But justification might have been found in the fact that Antony, who
was a member of the college of augurs, was inactive for many years while he
was in the East. See J. Hammer, Prolegomena to an Edition of the Panegyricus
Messalae (New York, 1925), 13-14, 32; Syme Revolution 238; MRR 2.425-
426, for a list of augurs in 31 B.C.; M.W. Hoffman Lewis, The Official Priests
of Rome under the Julio-Claudians, Papers and Monographs of the American
Academy in Rome 16 (Rome, 1955), 41-42, 82-84.

16.1 OniKTioiou xoXixa: Octavian accorded Utica in the province of

Africa Roman citizenship under title of Municipium lulium Uticense (cf. Pliny
HN 5.24: Utica civium Romanorum Catnis morte nobilis). In Dio's*ime it
was a Hadrianic colony with the title Colonia Iulia Aelia; Hadriana Augusta
Utika (CIL 8.1181). A wealthy city, it was long a Roman -con ventus with the
largest concentration of cives Romani in Africa. Dio was familiar with the pro-
vince of Africa (at least from the time of his proconsulship ea 223), but we can
only speculate why he singled out Utica here: Augustus gave the status of
municipium to fourteen cities in the province (not necessarily all in 36 B.C.),
perhaps because the Africans had come over to him without a struggle (as Dio
notes in 49.14.6). Doubtless the Uticans were rewarded in 36 (as was Valerius
Messalla) for some assistance in the war against Sextus Pompey. Dio may also
have played on the contrast between Cato's unbending hostility to Caesar, Utica
as the site of Cato's suicide and burial, and the city's role in support of Caesar's
heir. Dio is prone to noting such ironies. In general, see RE Supp. 9.1890
Utica (Ville); S. Gsell, Histoire ancienne de l'Afrique du Nord 8 (Paris, 1928;
rpt. Osnabrck, 1972), 197; P. Romanelli, Storia Helle ptovincie romane
delf Africa <Roma, 1959), 208-209; A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman
Citizenship, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1973), 340,344-346.
o8rvx xi\\ itkoxtcrfi: Can we trust Dio's statement that Octavian in
36 restricted the. wearing of purple garments to senators holding magistracies?
Use of purple as a status symbol of wealth and as insignia of royal power and of
aristocracy was more than a millennium old. Private persons had been wearing
sea-purple garments in Rome long before 36 B.C. Particularly in the last
decades of the Republic, the wearing of all-purple luxury garments was so much
in vogue that this fashion came under the censure not only of Cato Uticensis but
even of Cicero. Suetonius (Caes. 43.1) cites a restrictive measure of Caesar
40 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
interdicting the wearing of garments dyed with sea-purple except by specific
persons on specific days. Octavian may have reenacted Caesar's restrictive
ordinance, already in disuse after his death. Perhaps Octavian sought to point the
finger at Antony, whose use of purple in his costume at this time betokened
royal insignia (cf. Floras 2.21.3). One suspects that Dio was here emphasizing
some regulation of Octavian (left unclear to us) in a manner that might provide^
precedent or analogy for some contemporary controversy involving the levelling
of status symbols. See M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in
Antiquity, Collection Latomus 116 (Bruxelles, 1970), 3, 44-46.

16.2 K<kv tip avxcp totip exet: "and in this same year." For this
phrase in a traditional annalistic "end chapter," see on "The Year 36 B.C.,"
above.
YOpav6|io: On the scarcity of aediles and on aediles serving\inviti
("unwillingly") during the last decades of the Republic and under Augustus, see
48.53.4; 53.2.2; 54.11.1; 55.24.9. Hence the uniqueness of Agrippa's
undertaking the aedileship in 33 KOV ("willingly," 49.43.In). Dio may have
emphasized the absence of aediles as precedent for developments under the
Antonine monarchy. While there were still aediles in the third century, their
importance was considerably diminished since their major functions had been
taken over by the praefectus urbi, praefectus vigilum, and praefectus annonae, all
imperial appointees. Moreover, under Severus Alexander the aedileship came to
a virtual end when senators were instructed to proceed directly from quaestorship
to praetorship. See Hammond Monarchy 295, 312 nn44-45.
icoA.iap%o,: Normally a praefectus urbi was designated for the time of
the Feriae Latinae, when all magistrates were absent from Rome at Mons
Albanus (for one day, usually in April). This extraordinary official had
imperium domi as surrogate for the consuls, upon whose return to Rome his
power lapsed. The omission of such an appointment was highly irregular (cf.
41.14.4; Weinstock Julius 320-325). At this time, the maintenance of order in
the city was delegated to some of the praetors, who stayed behind, and to
Maecenas.
tic Maurfjva: Dio's introduction of Maecenas here for the first time
in his History, though he had already emerged on uie scene of history earlier (in
42 B.C. at Philippi) and had had an important role as representative and
counsellor of Octavian (espciafly for the Treaty of Brundisium), was induced by
the mention of praefectus urbi. The appointment of Maecenas, an equestrian (in
Dio's time there was a sharp upswing' in the importance of the quits in both
administrative and military spheres), t a new and unprecedented post as
surrogate for the triumvir Octavian appeared to Dio as a sort of precedent for the
 15.1-16.2: OCTAVIAN IN ROME (36 B.C.) 41
imperial praefectus urbi, who was a senior senator and had extensive jurisdiction. '
Maecenas was sentjo Rome from the Sicilian theatre of operations to maintain
order (undoubtedly with military forces at his command). The situation in Rome
and Italy was indeed perilous: the memory of Pompey the Great still had potency
among the Roman plebs, and Sextus Pompey profited by this; there were armed
bands of the proscribed and of victims of the land confiscations throughout Italy;
insurrection threatened in Etruria (49.15.1); the war taxes were high and
unpopular; and the disruption of commerce jeopardized the food supply of the
city. See Gabba Appian 170 (on BC 5.99 [414]). Though Maecenas had wide-
ranging authority, with police power, in Rome and therestof Italy, he did not of
course have the tide praefectus urbi; his role was, in fact, closer to that of the
later praefectus praetorio. Cf. Tac. Ann. 6.11.2: Augustus bellis civilibus
Cilnium Maecenatem equestris ordinis cunctis apud Romam atque ltaliam
praeposuit; Vell. Pat. 2.88.2: Tunc urbis custodiis praepositus C. Maecenas,
equestri sed splendido genere natus; App. BC 5.99 [414], 112 [470]; Anon. Eleg.
in Maecen. 1.14 (vigil urbis), 1.27 (urbis custos), 1.41-42 (with Octavian in the
campaign against Sextus Pompey). See PIR^ M 37; RE 14.212 = Maecenas 6
(Stein and Kappelmacher); J.-M. Andr, Mcne, Annales Litt. Univ. Besanon
86 (Paris, 1967), 27, 34, 37, 50-51, 64-65; M.W. Thompson, "The Date of
Horace's First Epode," CQ 20 (1970), 328-334; Woodman Velleius 238-239 (on
2.82.2). Maecenas was a highly influential member of the municipal nobiles of
Etruria, many of whom supported Octavian and rose to high rank and position
under his patronage. See J.F. Hall, The Municipal Aristocracy of Etruria and
Their Participation in Politics at Rome, B.C. 91-A.D. 14 (Diss. Pennsylvania,
1984).
Maecenas' surrogate imperium domi lapsed on the return of Octavian
shortly before 13 November, the day of his Ovatio. How long did Maecenas
have this role? He was at Octavian's side in the war against Sextus Pompey.
Appian (BC 5.99 [414]) says that, after the beginning of the operations and the
disastrous storm on 3 July (cf. 49.1.3n), Octavian seht Maecenas to Rome to
quell disorders. But at BC 5.112 [470] we learn that when, after the Battle of
Mylae (i.e., at the end of July or in the first half of August), Octavian's ships
off the east coast of Sicily were overwhelmed by Sextus and Octavian escaped to
the mainland, he sent Maecenas a second time to Rome because of unrest in the
capital. Thus Maecenas was Octavian'srepresentativein Rome and Italy either
continuously for about four months, or for two separate periods, about one
month beginning early July, and then from about the middle of August to early
November.
42 boMMENTARYONBOOK49
Maecenas' later appointment to the same competence, Dio states here,
extended ac! itoXv, "for a long time." The duration of that term was for about
two years, from spring or fall of 31 to late summer of 29. See 51.3.5n; 55.7.1.

17.1-18.7: SEXTUS POMPEY'S END (cf. Map 2)

Dio treats Sextus Pompey's flight to the East, his activities there, and his
ignominious death quite summarily; Appian expands considerably (C 5.133-
144 [550-600]; cf. 5.122 [504-505]). See RE 21.2241-2245 = Pompeius 33
(Miltner); Hadas Sextfis 148-160; Buchheim Orientpolitik 88-90. Sextus' aims
and strategy in the East were multiple and pragmatically extemporized: for
survival he exploited Pompey the Great's name and ties of patronage in the East,
solicited support from his followers in Sicily and from those disaffected from
both triumvirs, threw himself on the mercy of Antony (but did not^jo to
Alexandria), and finally even aspired to succeed to Antony's power in the East; at
the same time he kept open options for flight to and support from the Parthians.
See App. BC 5.133 [550-554]; Vell. Pat. 2.79.5: inter ducem et supplicem
tumultuatur et nunc dignitatem retinet, nunc vitam precatur ("He was at cross
purposes between leader and suppliant, and now preserved his status, now begged
for his life").

17.1 IK t e TT^ Meoof|vr|: It is noteworthy that Octavian did not pursue

Sextus (cf. App. BC 5.127 [525]). Dio does not mention that Sextus, sailing
along the coast of south Italy, stopped first at the Lacinian Promontory and
plundered the Temple of Hera there (App. BC 5.133 [550]). His route was from
Messana to Corcyra, Cephallenia, and Lesbos.

17.2 Kpievpav: Corcyra was an important Roman naval station. Pompey

the Great, in the civil war, had made the island the centre of his naval operations,
and presumably had clients there. See Enciclopedia Italiana 11.393, 397; R.
Matton, Corfou (Athinai, 1960), 49; H. J. W. Jervis, History of the Island of
Corfu, and the Republic of the Ionian Islands (London, 1852; rpt. Amsterdam,
1970), 70. The normal spelling (on inscriptions and coins) is Kopicupot; the
spelling in literary works is either, but Dio spells it Kpicupa, archaizing (after
Thucydides). See Boissevain ad loc. It is curious that the MSS of Dio read the
vernacular Kpicupa here, but elsewhere, without exception, Kpicupa.

17.3 TTJV t e OKeofiv T*|V OTpaTnyiicf|v: There is an apparent conflict

between Dio's statement that Sextus divested himself of his general's uniform at
Cephallenia, and Appian's statement (BC 5.122 [504]) that he did so en route to
 17.1-18.7: SEXTUS POMPEY'S END (36 B.C.) 43
Messana, before he left Sicily. One may grant mat Sextos removed his uniform
in Sicily to escape, then resumed it on shipboard, removed it again at
Cephallenia, and subsequently donned it once more at Mytilene on Lesbos (see
49.17.6). Florus (2.18.9) says that he also removed his signet ring.

17.4 yvd&unv: On Pompey's purported plan to join forces with Antony, cf.
App. BC 5.133 [550-551]. But he did not journey to Alexandria, where his
father had been assassinated.
v Aeoqi: Pompey's station in Lesbos was at Mytilene (App. BC
5.133 [550]), where he had stayed as a boy with his mother Cornelia during the
civil war with Caesar, from early 48 B.C. to August/September of that year.
See Hadas Sextus 22-35. Sextus lived here now as a private citizen, exploiting
Pompey's name and relying on the ties of patronage of Pompey in the East
(Hadas Sextus 150-154).
xl MTI8OU: See 49.23-33.

17.5 Qopvio: On Gaius Furnius, see PIR2 F 590; MRR 2.402, 408. He
had been a friend of Pompey the Great and of Cicero. At this time he was a
partisan of Antony and governor of the province of Asia. His forces were
supplemented by those of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, another lieutenant of
Antony who was governor of Bithynia (from 40 to 34: MRR 2.382, 397, 401-
402, 407, 412; CAH 10.43), and by those of King Amyntas. He is the Furnius
who was unable to hold his office,! though consul designate, because of the
instability of the times, and was by way of compensation later adlected by
Octavian in 29 inter Consulares (52.42.4n).

17.6 Xxfoa TTJV TOS 'AVTCDVOD pX'h.v SiqSeoOai: On news

of Antony's debacle in October 36, Sextus decided to resart to military force.
On the resumption of his uniform, see above, 49.17.3n. He was able to
mobilize an army of only three legions and 200 hors4 (Syme [Revolution 231;
App. BC 5.137 [571]), and a considerable fleet. One of his stratagems was to
attempt to seize Ahenobarbus and hold him as hostage (App. BC 5.137 [568]).

18.1 Tv Te jcapvtcov exeio: On Sextus' manoeuvering with

Antony, his double-dealing, and negotiations with the Parthians and die dient
kings of Thrace and Pontus, see App. BC 5.133 [553-554], 136 [565].
Presumably he hoped, if necessary, to emulate Q. Labienus, Parthicus imperator,
as collaborator with the Parthians. #
44 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

18.2 TITIOV: On Marcus Titius, nephew of the more famous L. Munatius

Plancus, see RE 6A. 1559-1562 = Titius 18 (Hanslik); Glauning Anhngerschaft
21-22. He had served under Sextos Pompey, then attached himself to Antony,
and finally went over, in 32, to Octavian before the Battle of Actium. He
became consul in 31. It is not clear what position he held now in 36-35 (see
Gabba Appian 224-225). See also, on Titius, 50.3.1-2n, 13.5. Antony detached
Titius to maintain surveillance over Sextos at Mytilene. After Sextos'
execution, which he supervised, Titius was reviled at Rome for putting to death
the man who had earlier saved his life (Vell. Pat. 2.79.5-6; cf. 2.77.3; App. BC
5.142 [589]).

18.3 SioteeoBai 56icet: Sextos in his plans needed bases, supplies,

funds, and troops. Early in 35 he attacked Cyzicus (but was expelled by
Antony's garrison), seized Harbour of the Achaeans (in the Troad o \ the
Hellespont) and Lampsacus, which had a good harbour (App. BC 5.137 [570]),
and occupied Nicomedia and Nicaea (App. BC 5.139 [576]). It is odd that Dio
mentions only Nicomedia, because Nicaea (modern Iznik) in Bithynia, a wealthy
city of strategic importance, was his native place (75.15.3). Nicomedia (modern
Ismit), capital of the province of Bithynia, was a great metropolis and naval
station in the third century, a place where emperors wintered (77.18.1; 78.8.4).

18.4 v xe Mroteiq: After burning his ships, Sextos sought flight on

land. The exact location of Midaum in Phrygia is disputed (RE 15.1524-1526
= Midaion [Ruge]). It was a populous Phrygian town (Pliny HN 5.145) near the
border between Phrygia, Bithynia, and (probably) Galatia (cf. App. BC 5.140
[580]; Str. 12.571). I owe this suggestion about the location of Midaum to
John Humphrey. F. Lasserre, in his Bud text of Strabo (vol. 9.223), locates it
as "probablement Karahiiyiik Ocklari 30 km ESE Eskisehir."
Sextos was taken by Titius, Fumius, and Amyntas, but surrendered himself
only to Amyntas (App. BC 5.142 [595]).

18.4-6 yp\i\iaxa: Dio and Appian (BC 5.144 [598-600]) give two
different versions concerning the death warrant of Sextos Pompey. Dio's story
of the two letters from Antony with opposite instructions appears fanciful, and
has the earmarks of a folktale or rhetorical topos: Appian says nothing of two
different letters. Compare the case of P. Petronius reported by Josephus in BJ
2.203: When governor of Syria in A.D. 40/41 he was threatened with death by
Gaius Caligula for reluctance to introduce a statue of the emperor into the
Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. The threat came in a letter which, because of
winter, was delayed three months in the delivery. A second letter, with the news
 17.1-18.7: SEXTUS POMPEY'S END (36 B.C.) 45
of Gaius' death, reached him twenty-seven days before"ttfi emperor's letter.
There were, as well, historical precedents surely known to Dio. The prototypical
exemplum for Dio may have been the two successive decrees of the Athenian
assembly in 427 B.C., the first ordering the execution of Mytilenaeans of
military age and the enslavement of women and children, the second, the very
next day, rescinding the order (Thuc. 3.49).
The problem of who ordered Pompey's deathremainsunresolved: Titius on
his own or at Antony's explicit orders; or by order of Plancus, whether on his
own authority or with Antony's knowledge (App. BC 5.144 [599-600]). In any
case, Titius attended to the execution.

18.5 After va oxoOfi in MS L there is a lacuna of 18-20 letters, in M of about

34 letters. But the sense is adequate despite the gap.

18.6 ZTOU tivo no|iicitiou: Dio specifies the date of the death of
Sextus Pompey in 35 because of the irony that one of the consuls of the year
was a certain Sextus Pompey (cf. 49.33.In). Dio does not mention the place of
execution: Miletus (App. BC 5.144 [598]; Str. 3.141). Appian (BC 5.139
[579]) tells us that with Pompey at the end were Cassius of Parma (cf. 51.2.4-
6n), Q. Nasidius (cf. 50.13.5), Sentius Saturninus, Q. Minucius Thermus, C.
Antistius Reginus, C. Fannius, and L. Scribonius Libo (Sextus' father-in-law:
cf. 48.16.3). All went over to Antony in time to save their lives.
x<p 'AvxoDvup: On honours to Antony for the elimination of Sextus
Pompey, coinciding with similar honours to Octavian, see 49.15.1-2n,
particularly Antony's privilege of banqueting with his wife and children in the
Temple of Concord.

18.7 nkxxexo: Dio's ironical personal comment on Octavian's

hypocrisy toward Antony is noteworthy (Sr\8ev often marks irony in Dio, as
here). Cf. Millar Study 97 n5.

19.1-22.3: VENTIDIUS' VICTORIES OVER THE PARTHIANS (cf. Map 2)

Dio's narrative of the remainder of Book 49 was motivated and moulded by two
major themes: the successes of subordinate commanders that overshadowed those
of the imperatores themselves (see above, Introduction to Book 49); and
Antony's personal failures in the East and his increasing betrayal of Romanitas,
as contrasted with Octavian's successes in Sicily and the Balkans, as well as his
solicitude for Rome and Italy. To dramatize these antithesesas well as to
indulge his penchant for vivid narrativeDio reached back to 38 B.C. to contrast
46 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
the brilliant successes of Ventidius over the Parthians with Antony's Parthian
dbcle.
Antony's eastern policy was a patchwork of pragmatic arrangements that
conformed to four imperatives: his commitment to a campaign of revenge, as
well as to overawe and weaken Parthian power; his search for glory and hope of
booty; the abiding conflict with Octavian and his partisans in Italy; and his
absorbing attraction to Cleopatra and Egypt. It is evident that Antony did not
put into place an efficient system of reliable client rulers until 37-36 (see
49.32.3n). He inherited Caesar's master plan for the Parthian campaign: Caesar
had planned to depart from Rome on this grand Alexander-like exploit on 18
March 44, and to spend three years on eastern campaigns, directed principally
against the Parthians. See Bengtson Partherfeldzug 4-9; Syme Revolution 259-
275; A. Zwaenepoel, "La politique orientale d'Antoine," LEC 18 (1950), 3-15.
But Antony did not personally take supreme command against Parthia until the
spring of 36, eight months after the Treaty of Tarentum; and he appears to have V
scaled down Caesar's grandiose ambitions of conquest, contenting himself with a
show of Roman might sufficient to instal a new Parthian dynasty subservient to
Rome and to encircle Parthia with client states and rulers loyal to himself. Cf.
A S . Schieber, "Antony and Parthia," RSA 9 (1979), 108-113, supporting the
analysis of L. Craven, Antony's Oriental Policy Until the Defeat of the Parthian
Expedition, University Of Missouri Studies, Social Science Series 3.2
(Columbia, Missouri, 1920) (non vidi ).
Our sources for Antony's Parthian campaign are mostly unfriendly to him:
Livy.fer. 130; Florus; Eutropius; Rufus Festus; Orosius; Velleius; Frontinus
(the Stratagemata); and Dio 49.19-31. (Brcklein [Quellen 25-33] proposed that
the original hostile source was Livy.) The sources friendly to Antony are
Plutarch (Ant. 37-51) and Strabo. The latter apparently derived his material from
the account of the Parthian campaign by Antony's friend and adjutor Q. Dellius,
who participated in the campaign and, in the years immediately following, wrote
an historical work on the events, at the latest in 32 B.C. On the sources in
general, see Bengtson Partherfeldzug 9-13; Brcklein Quellen 6-46 ("Die
Quelle"). On Dellius, see Glauning Anhngerschaft 29-30; MRR 2.409, 413,
423; RE 4.2447 = Q. Dellius (Wissowa); Manuwald Dio 227 n376; and Dio
49.39.2-3; 50.13.8, 23.1-3.

19.1 O e v T i S i o : Dio's extended account of the exploits of "the

phenomenal" P. Ventidius follows the traditional portrayal of the novus homo,
who rose from obscurity to the celebration of a triumph over the Parthians.
Ventidius' career constituted for Dio a paradigm of social mobility in unstable
times: once carried by his mother in the triumphal procession of Pompeius
 19.1-22.3: VENTIDIUS' VICTORIES (38 B.C.) 47
Strabo (89 B.C.) among the captives in the Italian War, he moved rapidly-
through association with Caesar and Antonyto the role of senator and consul
(suffectus, in 43)capping his meteoric career with brilliant military successes,
"einer der fhigsten Generale des Antonius" (Gardthausen Augustus 1.228). For
Dio's'previous accounts of Ventidius, see 43.51.4-5; 47.15.2; 48.10.1, 39.2-
41.5.
On the career of the remarkable Ventidius, see, e.g., Gardthausen Augustus
1.226-233; 2.111-115; O.E. Schmidt, "P. Ventidius Bassus," Philologus 51
(1892), 198-211; Gnther Beitrge 44-49; MRR 2.383, 388, 393; RE
8A.795-816 = Ventidius 5 (Gundel); Syme Revolution Index; Huzar Antony
173-175; Scuderi Commente 11-1A.
For the time of Ventidius' arrival in the East, and his title and authority,
see Appendix 4, "Ventidius' Command in the East (49.19.1-22.1)."
Fldieopov: On Pacorus, son and co-regent of King Orodes of Parthia, see
Tarn in CAH 10.47-48; on his campaigns into Roman territory with Q.
Labienus in 40, see 48.24-26, 41.3-5. Dio's previous statement (40.29.3), that
Pacorus abandoned all of Syria earlier (51 B.C.) and never again invaded it, is
erroneous. His new, sudden incursion occurred in early spring of 38.
a i ic6A,ei: Many Greek cities in Phoenicia, Syria, and Palestine,
disaffected by Roman misrule in these parts, had welcomed Pacorus and Labienus
in 40 (48.25.1-2, 26.3).
x otpaTxeSa v to xeilLaSioic 2xi Sioxapto: Venti-
dius wintered in Syria, but his troops were widely deployed, distributed in winter
quarters as far north as Cappadocia across the Taurus Mountains (Fron. Str.
1.1.6). Ventidius' legionary forces were supplemented by a strong force of
slingers (Rome's counter-weapon against the Parthian bowmen: see Dio
49.26.2). Josephus (AJ 14.468-469) gives as eleven the number of legions
gathered before Jerusalem in the next year (37) under Ventidius' successor,
Sosius, and Herod. '

19.2-4 Xavvav ttva: Ventidius' stratagem through Channaeus was a

deceptive ploy to delay a confrontation with the Parthians until he had adequate
time to mobilize his troops: those across the Taurus Mountains could not move
until the passes opened. Frontinus (Str.. 1.1.6) calls the pro-Parthian princeling
in northern Syria Pharnaeus, natione Cyrrhestes. This was perhaps an alterna-
tive name for the same person (Debevoise [Parthia 117 n94] considered
Frontinus morereliable,in view of the Iranian element Phar- in the name).

19.3 ZevYficc: or Seleuceia-on-the-Euphrates, the famed bridgehead" t

Mesopotamia, where Syria, Commagene, and Mesopotamia meet, was on the
48 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
west bank of the river, at modern Belquis, near Bergik, ea 110 km west of
Carrhae. Alexander and Crassus had crossed here (40.17.3). See RE 10A.251-
252 = Zeugma (Spuler); Classical Sites 1000; J. Wagner, Seleukeia am Euphrat/
Zeugma (Wiesbaden, 1976), 33. The longer route taken by Pacorus, a diversion
that afforded Ventidius over forty days more time (but is Frontinus' "forty days"
here the Near Eastern idiom for "considerable time"?), was KOITCO TO rcorauo,
"downstream," i.e., south of Zeugma. Tam (CAH 10.50) misinterpreted Kara
To jcoxauot) as involving a crossing north of Zeugma, perhaps at Samosata.

20.1 xfj Xupi...KopT|0TiKi): On the spelling of the name of this part of

Syriawith one rho or ~with twosee Boissevain ad loc. The Latin is
Cyrrhestica or Cyrrestica (or -e). Syria Cyrthestike was the northeast corner of
Syria, between the Euphrates and Mt Amanus, enclosing the land from the
Antioch plain in the south to Commagene in the north. See RE 4A.1638 ^=
Syria (Honigmann); RE 12.191-198 = KuppT)oxiKTj (Honigmann) (with map); E.
Frzouls, "Cyrrhus et la Cyrrestique jusqu' la fin du Haut-Empire/' ANRW
2.8.164, 176-177 (with map).

20.1-3 eviKrjoev: The decisive battle against Pacorus was fought at

Gindaros (modern Tell Jindaris), ea 40 km northeast of Antioch-on-the-Orontes,
and ea 140 km west of the Euphrates. It is called by Strabo (16.751) a fortress
town, the key to Cyrrhestike. On the date of the Battle of Gindaros, see
49.21.2-3n.
Dio emphasizes that, in this decisive battle, Roman infantry and slingers
(6reXixuv...a<pevoovr)Tfflv) confronted mostly Parthian mailed cavalry
(KatouppaKTOi: on these heavy-armed cataphracts, equipped with long lances and
bows, see 40.15.2; 49.26.2). In the Parthian armies there were also light horse-
archers as well as infantry bowmen (see Colledge Parthians 65). Dio avers that
Roman slingers could outdistance Parthian bowmen (49.26.2n). At Gindaros the
Romans had the advantage of hilly terrain, for Parthian cavalry required flat
country. On Parthian tactics, see Tarn in CAH 9.601-602. Tarn states
elsewhere (CAH 10.49) that Pacorus changed traditional Parthian tactics on this
occasion by substituting the nobility as the main force, armed as heavy
cataphracts, for the older practice of using mostly masses of retainers as highly
mobile mounted archers.
According to Frontinus (Str. 2.2.5), Ventidius held back his troops until
the Parthians quingentis non amplius passibus abessent ("were not more than
500 paces away"), then advanced rapidly so as to avoid the Parthian arrows.
Roman slingers let loose their barrage and the legionaries strove to knock the
cataphracts off their horses, thus leaving them helpless. For the Battle of
 19.1-22.3: VENTIDIUS'VICTORIES (38 B.C.) 49
Gindaros, see also Vell. Pat. 2.78.1; Jos. AJ 14.434; BJ 1.317; Tac. Hist.
5.9.1; Floras 2.19.5-6; Justin 42.4.7-10. The Parthians did not cross the
Euphrates again after Gindaros, the "revenge for Carrhae," until A.D. 162.
For the tactics and importance of Gindaros, see RE 8A.810-813 =
Ventidius 5 (Gundel); Debevoise Parthia 118; D. Timpe, "Die Bedeutung der
Schlacht von Carrhae," MH 19 (1962), 117; Bengtson Antonius 180-181;
Sherwin-White Foreign Policy 303-305.

20.3-4 6 ndicopo, neav: On the death of Pacorus, cf. Livy Per.\2%;

Fron. Str. 1.1.6. The retreat of the surviving Parthians eastwards was toward a
pontoon bridge over the Euphrates where they had crossed into Syria. The
cutting off of Pacorus'. head as a trophy and its display to the Greek cities were
not only a signal of the failure of his invasion, but also revenge for the
decapitation at the Battle of Carrhae of Crassus' son Publius and the display of
his head on a lance, as well as the exhibition of Crassus' head: and hand shortly
after Carrhae, as a trophy sent to King Orodes (Tarn in CAH 9jl0-612). Cf.,
e.g., 49.22.6n on die decapitation of Herod's brother Joseph by King Antigonus,
and the subsequent beheading of Antigonus by Antony at Herod's request,

20.3 Tov 'Avtioxov: On Antiochus I of Commagene, father-in-law of King

Orodes of Parthia, see Buchheim Orientpolitik 79-81; H. Dorne, Der Knigskult
des Antiochus von Kommagene, Abhandlungen Akad. Wiss. Gott., Philolog.-
Hist. Kl. 3.60 (Gttingen, 1964). He built for himself the famous tomb on
Nemrut Dag in the Taurus. In 39 Ventidius had subjected him to payment of
tribute (48.41.5). The siege of Samosata, the royal capital, was motivated by
Antiochus' granting of asylum to Parthians who had escaped from Gindaros, but
Dio imputes to Ventidius as "the real cause" x %px\\iaxa...niiicoXka, "his
vast wealth."

20.4 5iKai0ttv|i...spjtTnti: Dios evaluation! of Pacorus' appeal to the

people in the neighbouring Roman provinces may be intended as a warning that
provinces on the .borders of the empire were disposed to hostility towards
tyrannical Roman rulers (such as Caracalla or Elagabalus). Cf. Bato's reply to
Tiberius in a similar vein (56.16.3), and Dio's own criticism (75.3.3) of the
constant, expensive wars on the borders of the empire, fought especially over
peoples neighbouring "the Medes and Parthians."

21.1 %r\$ pzfi afav Excrooe: The arrival of Antony about July of 38
at Samosata (Dio calls it "sudden") would naturally result in his assuming"
supreme command, preliminary to the implementation of his plan for an
50 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
invasion of Parthia. It is not unlikely that Ventidius remained with Antony
until the capitulation of Samosata (cf. 49.22. l-2n), and that he accompanied him
back to Athens. We do not know why Antony made no further use of Ventidius
(age? illness?). Dio's explanationthat Antony relieved Ventidius of his
command out of jealousy (cf. Plut. Ant. 34.4)is in line with Dio's conception
of the relationship between those in power and their subordinates (see 49.4.1-
4n), and would appear to stem from an anti-Antonian source. Tarn's view (CA//
10.49-50, 53), that Ventidius was cashiered because of his acceptance of bribes
from Antigonus of Judaea and Antiochus, is as implausible as Dio's
explanation, which some claim is derived from a panegyric for Ventidius on his
triumph, written by Sallust (49.21.3n; cf. Appendix 5, "Ventidius' Triumphal
Oration"). It was Ventidius' achievement to have stabilized the East (cf.
Bengtson Partherfeldzug 17), and Antony celebrated this accomplishment (as
well as the victory of Asinius Pollio against the Illyrians) in Athens, and was
saluted Imperator II and III. See BMCRep. 2.505-506. Plutarch (Ant. 34.4)
reports that Antony returned to Athens, where he spent the winter with Octavia,
and that he "bestowed suitable honours on Ventidius and sent him back to his
triumph."

21.1-2 iepouT|v{a x' uoxpoi TO pyo Kai niviKia:

"thanksgivings for both exploits and a triumph." "Both" would appear to refer
to the two battles for which Ventidius earned his triumph: Mt Taurus and
Amanus in 39, and Gindaros. Dio is here obviously enhancing the image of
Ventidius by noting the envy of Antony and his usurpation of honours due to
Ventidius.

21.2-3 v xf| utfi T)upa: Gindaros took place sometime in June 38.
The tradition that the victory over Pacorus occurred on the very day of the
fifteenth anniversary of the Battle of CarrhaeJune 9is. "probably an
invention" (Tarn, CAH 10.51). For the date of 9 June for Carrhae, see Ovid
Fasti 6.465-466; CAH 9.610-612; K. Regling, "Crassus' Partherkrieg," Klio 7
(1907), 388-389. The tradition that Gindaros occurred on the anniversary of that
day (Eutr. 7.5; Festus 18.2) may derive from a Livian conception stressing the
"revenge" motif (cf. 49.21.2; so Regling, op. cit. 389 ni). Cf. Eutr. 7.5: P.
Ventidius Bassus.. .Pacorum, regis Orodis filium, interfecit eo ipso die quo olim
Orodes Persarum rex per ducem Surenam Crassum occiderat ("P. Ventidius
Bassus...killed Pacorus, son of King Orodes, on the very same day on which
previously Orodes, king of the Persians, through his general Surena had killed
Crassus").
 19.1-22.3: VENTIDIUS'VICTORIES (38 B.C.) 51
21J t a viKTjTT|pio: Ventidius celebrated his triumph on 27 November
38. The sources emphasize that he was the first to triumph over the Parthians;
yet he did not set foot on Parthian soil. On his triumph, see Pliny HN 7.135;
Vell. Pat. 2.65.3; Val. Max. 6.9.9;'Plut. Antritt; Pronto Vei. 2.1.7; Gell.
15.4.4 (primum omnium de Partais triumphass); Eutr. 7.5; cf. RE 8A.813-814
= Ventidius 5 (Gundel). Jacoby (FGrH 2B.622, 196) conjectures that Julius
Polyaenus of Sardis, a freedman of Julius Caesar, composed something to
commemorate the triumph of Ventidius Bassus.
For the official documentation: Fasti Triumphales Capitolini (CIL l 2
pp54, 76, 180; ///. 13.1.86-87, 569): P. Ventidius P. f. pro co(n)s(ule) ex Tauro
monte et Partheis V k. Decern, an. DCCX\ V] (because of the-lacuna, Tam
[CAH 10.53] insists on a date of either 38 or 37); Fasti Triumphales Barberini-
ani (CIL l 2 p77; lit. 13.1.342-343). The title "proconsul" in the Fasti is
nettlesome: traditionally, only commanders conducting wars suis auspiciis and
suo imperio were eligible for triumphs. But under Julius Caesar (after 45) and
during the Second Triumvirate triumphs were allowed, irregularly, to. such
secondary commanders. See Cagnat in DS 5.488-491; Mommsen StR 1.126-
136; RE 7A.498 = Triumphus (Ehlers); Schleussner Legaten 171J
Mommsen (StR 1.130 n5) suggests that for the day of the triumph such
legati were accorded a fictive, independent proconsular imperium. Contra, RE
9.1144 = Imperator (Rosenberg); R. Combes, Imperator (Paris, 1966), 85-86,
161, 459. Yet we find the title "proconsul" in the Fasti Triumphales for all
legati who celebrated triumphs at the end of the Republic (e.g., C. Sosius,
Asinius Pollio, T. Statilius Taurus).
Was Ventidius acclaimed imperator! The evidence is murky. Dio
specifically states (48.41.5) that Ventidius received no reward in 39, but that
Antony received eulogies and a thanksgiving for his legatus' victory over
Labienus and the Parthians (cf. Tarn in CAH 10.50; 53. for Antony's second
and third acclamations as imperator in 39/38, wljich apear to have been
occasioned by Ventidius' victories). But a scarce aiid rnuc|-disputed denarius
struck by Ventidius shows on the obverse a portrait of Antony, and on the
reverse P. Ventidi Pont. Imp. T.V. Buttrey, "The Denarius of P. Ventidius,"
ANSMusN 9 (1960), 95-108, argues that the-coin was struck in 39. Gndel
(RE 8A.809-810 = Ventidius 5) argues that Dio's statement in 48.41.5 fits the
events of 38 better. On the question of whether a legatus could be hailed
imperator, it is noteworthy that the coins of another legatus of Antony, C.
Sosius, also designate him as imperator (BMCRep. 2.508 146). L.
Schumacher, "Die imperatorischen Akklamationen und die auspicia des
Augustus," Historia 34 (1985), 194-196, faults Dio for ruling out such
52 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
imperatorial acclamations with anachronism, and for retrojecting imperial
practices to the triumviral period.

21.3 86av: Ventidius was long remembered as a rhetorical topos not only
because he was a military hero but because of the reversal of fortune from
captive to triumphator (cf. Dio 49.19.In; Gell. 15.4.|). See Appendix 5,
"Ventidius' Triumphal Oration."
After his triumph Ventidius' name disappears from history, except that he
was accorded a state funeral (Gell. 15.4.4). He died apparently before 32 B.C.
Gardthausen (Augustus 1.233) infers from Juvenal 11.22-23 (in Ventidio
laudabile nomen I sumit et a censufamam trahit) that Ventidius retired Lucul-
lus-fashion on princely riches brought from the East. But Juvenal may be
referring to a later unknown Ventidius (cf. PIR^ V 249).
The sculptured fragments of a funerary monument from an exclusive burial
area on the Via Appia, now in the Braccio Nuovo of the Conservatori Palace,
have been attributed to the tomb of P. Ventidius by von Sydow, who dates the
fragments on stylistic grounds to the time of the Second Triumvirate, ea 35 B.C.
(W. von Sydow, "Die Grabexedra eines rmischen Feldherrn," JDAI89 [1974],
187-216).

22.1-2 au,o~<XTGt: Samosata (modern Samsat), the capital and royal

residence of the kings of Commagene, lay on the west bank of the Euphrates, at
me caravan crossing 72 miles (according to Pliny) north of Zeugma (HN 5.85-
86; cf. Classical Sites 803-804). Josephus (BJ 1.321-322, 327; AJ 14.439-447)
features Herod's role in the siege of Samosata, stating that his arrival and his
exploits before the city induced Antiochus to surrender it. But Dio here (also
Plut. Ant. 34.2-3) reports that the siege was protracted and that Antony achieved
nothing by the siege operations (it was, after all, a formidable city: cf. Jos. BJ
1.321). On the siege, see RE 1A.2221-2223 = Samosata (Weissbach). An
indemnity had been imposed by Ventidius on Antiochus (as we!! as on
Antigonus of Judaea and Malichus of Arabia Nabataea) for siding with the
Parthians under Labienus and Pacorus (48.41.5; cf. 49.20.5). It was Antiochus'
failure to pay the indemnity that precipitated, in part, die siege. Dio here reports
that Antony failed to get the indemnity (x jcpTiuara) he had demanded of
Antiochus; Plutarch, however (Ant. 34.3-4), states that, though Antiochus had
previously offered Ventidius 1000 talents, Antony now had to be content with
300. The present passage is obviously from an anti-Antonian source (note
particularly the term nuict [49.22.1] to characterize Antony's supersession of
Ventidius).
 " 19.1-22.3: VENTIDIUS' VICTORIES (38 B.C.) 53
223 l o o i o : C. Sosius is introduced at this point for the contrast between
Antony's failure to complete the siege of Samosata and Sosius' success with
Aradus (see following note). The Latin sources consistently spell his name
Sosius (e.g., CIL 9.4855; ILS 934; and the Fasti Triumphales); the Greek
spelling is mostly Zooaio, which Dio always uses. For this devoted partisan of
Antony, see Glauning Anghngerschaft 8; MRR 2.393,412-413; RE 3A.1176-
1180 = Sosius 2 (Fluss); Schrer History 252. He was perhaps with Antony at
4he siege of Samosata. In any case, he was appointed as Ventidius' successor to
the governorship of Syria (and Cilicia). It is interesting to note that, like
Ventidius (cf. 49.21.3n), he is designated in the Fasti Triumphales as
"proconsul" (Broughton in MRR says "probably with the proconsular
imperium"), and he is also designated Imp. on his coins (for which see
BMCRep. 2.508-509). On his consulship in 32, see 50.2.2-7n; on his pardon
by Octavian, 51.2.4n.

223 'ApaSiov: On the island city of Aradus, the principat},metropolis of

northern Phoenicia, see OCD 91; Classical Sites 82. For its intransigence to
Antony and Ventidius in 40-39, and die protracted siege, see 48.24.3n, 41.4-6n.

22.3-6: THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM

22.3 'Avtvyovov: Antigonus (Hebrew name Mattathias), the last of the

Hasmonaean dynasty, descendant of Judas Maccabaeus, was installed by the
Parthians as client king in Judaea (cf. Appendix 4, "Ventidius' Command in the
East [49.19.1-22.1]"). On Antigonus, see Schrer History 281-286 (with
extensive bibliography); Smallwood Jews 57-59. On this entire passage of Dio,
see M. Stern, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 2 (Jerusalem,
1980), 359-362 414 (with commentary). ,
lo (ppoupov: This garrison refers to the six Roman cohorts destroyed
by Antigonus' troops in 38 together with Herod's brother Joseph, whom
Antigonus ordered beheaded (Jos. AJ 14.448-450).
jKXXH---eviKTjoe: Dio is in accord with other Roman sources in
assigning all the credit for the victory over Antigonus and for the reduction of
Jerusalem by siege to Roman generals and leaders, ignoring or minimizing
Herod's major role in these events. See, e.g., Livy Per. 128 (for 38-37 B.C.):
ludaei quoque a legatis Antonii subacti sunt; Sen. Suas. 2.21: Sosio Uli qui
ludaeos subegerat; Tac. Hist. 5.9.2: ludaeos C. Sosius subegit. Herod, of
course, could not have succeeded without Roman aid. In 38 Antony had
instructed Ventidius to send two legions and 1000 horse to Herod (Jos. AJ
14.434), but it was Herod alone who subjugated most of Judaea while Ventidius
54 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
was engaged with stemming the Parthian incursions into Syria. Not until the
end of the siege of Samosata did Antony, presumably in the presence of Herod,
instruct Sosius to aid Herod in force. Sosius sent two legions ahead to Judaea
with Herod, and himself followed with the greater part of his own army. The
total forces of Sosius and Herod at the siege of Jerusalem consisted of eleven
legions, 6000 horse, and auxiliary contingents (Jos. AJ 14.447,469).

22.4 oi 'IouSatot: Dio's judgement of the Jews as yvo...8 , uu(o8v

imcpoTcxTOv is characteristic of the prevailing Roman and Greek attitudes toward
the Jews: cf., e.g., Cic. Flac. 28.67-68: tarn suspiciosa ac maledica civitate;
Quint. Inst. 3.7.21: perniciosam ceteris gentem; Tac. Hist. 5.5. See J.P.V.D.
Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (London, 1979), 67-68, 107-108, 231-238; M.
Reinhold, Diaspora: The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans (Toronto, 1983),
121-127. OnDio'sknowledgeof the Jews, see 37.15.2-17.3; 69.12-14. TheV
three great revolts of the Jewsunder Nero, Trajan, and Hadrianwould have
coloured his views. On Dio's prejudice against alien peoples, especially his
hostile attitude towards Egyptians, though he never visited Egypt, see M.
Reinhold, "Roman Attitudes Toward Egyptians," AncW 3 (1980), 97-103;
Appendix 11, "Roman Attitudes Towards Egyptians."

22.4 v T xo Kp6vou...fiU.p: "on the day of Saturn." Dio in this

brief account wrongly relates the fall of Jerusalem in 38, perhaps tying it too
closely to the time of Antony's departure for Greece after Samosata (cf. W.E.
Filmer, "The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great," JThS 17 [1966],
285). Josephus, who gives a long, detailed narrative, places the siege in 37 (see
especially AJ 14.487). It is possible that Dio was referring to the beginning of
the Roman operations in Judaea under the command of Sosius, while Josephus
was concerned mostly with the end of the siege (cf. Sturz ad loc.). Josephus'
exactness of time is compelling evidence: the consulship of Marcus Agrippa and
Caninius Gallus in 37 (AJ 14.487).
See Appendix 3 on "The Date in 37 B.C. of the Capture of Jerusalem."

22.5 TH 8pn,OKeta: Cary mistranslates: "so excessive were they in their

devotion to religion." Dio means to say: "so great was their abiding devotion to
ritual."

22.6 'Hpr&n. Tivi: Herod was ceremonially invested in Rome with royal
power over Judaea as Roman client king in the fall of 40 (cf. Jos. AJ 14.384-
389; Str. 16.765; App. BC 5.75 [319]; Tac. Hist. 5.9.2), by the Senate and with
the approval of Antony and Octavian. But he did not assume his rule until he
 22.3-6: THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM (37 B.C.) 55

was installed by Sosius in Jerusalem in midsummer 37 (cf. Schalit Herodes 81-

88). Since Herod as Roman client king in the East fell under the imperium of
Antony, Dio is correct in stating that he ruled with Antony's approval. On
Antony's system of client states, and Herod's role in it, see 49.32.3n.
'Avtiyovov... x o a e v : It is noteworthy that Antigonus
surrendered to Sosius, not to Herod, expecting more leniency from the Roman
than the fellow-Jew. Dio mentions Antigonus' execution at the end of his
account of 38, but, in fact, this took place the next year in Antioch, capital of
the province of Syria, where Antony went from Italy and Greece in the autumn
of 37 (see 49.23.In). On the ignominious manner of Antigonus' execution-
tied to a stake, flogged, and beheadedcf. Jos. AJ 14.489-490; 15.5-10; BJ
1.352-353, 357; Plut. Ant. 36.2; Safrai & Stern Jewish People 226 n2; Schalit
Herodes 691-692; K. Albert, Strabo als Quelle des Flavius Josephus
(Aschaffenburg, 1902), 41-43. For this type of punishment by the Romans, cf.
Livy 7.19.3; 28.29.11; Plb. 11.30.2; Sturz on Dio 49.22.6)- orus (1.21.3)
states that decapitation with an axe (ut victimas securi percutiuni) instead of a
sword was more ignominious because it was like the slaughtering! of a sacrificial
victim. Dio's statement that no other king had suffered such punishment before
at the hands of the Romans (i.e., being tied to a stake and flogged; he does not
specify the method of execution) may be an exaggeration: on the beheading of
rebel chiefs, see Cic. Pis. 84; Tac. Ann. 4.24.2. It is noteworthy that Antony
did not execute Artavasdes of Armenia, whom he kept under guard for years in
Alexandria; Dio (51.5.4-5n) attributes to Cleopatra his execution and the display
of his head after Actium. Moreover, Pmpey did not put Antigonus' father
Aristobulus II to death after parading him in his triumph at Rome in 61. It is
likely that the beheading of Antigonus was demanded by Herod, who sought
revenge for the decapitation of his brother Joseph by Antigonus. For the
beheading of Crassus, his son Publius, and the Parthian prince Pacorus (in every
case after their deaths, not as a form of execution), sep 49.20G-4n.
On the triumph of Sosius ex Iudaea on 3j September 34, see Fasti
Triumphales Capitolini and Barberiniani, lit. 13.1.8(^-87, 342-343, 569. For the
coins of Sosius depicting a trophy and figures of Judaea personified and
Antigonus, with the legend C. Sosius imp., see BMCRep. 2.508.

23.1-33.4: ANTONY'S PARTHIAN CAMPAIGN (cf. Map 2)

ANTONY'S GRAND STRATEGY FOR THE PARTHIAN INVASION

While we do not possess explicit evidence for Antony's strategy; and operational
plans, as he launched his operations in the spring of 36 he appears to have
followed Caesar's earlier plan for the assault on Parthia (Bengtson Partherfeldzug
56 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

4-9; contra, Sherwin-White Foreign Policy 307-308, 310, 312). Needless to

say, in the intervening eight years since Caesar's death many objective
conditions had changed, both in the Roman world and within Parthia. Whatever
Caesar's grandiose ambitions in the East may have been, Antony's geopolitical
aspirations were scaled down and temporizing: his initial purpose was to assure a
client king of a new dynasty subservient to Rome, not to mount a grand,
Alexandrian campaign. His major strategic goal was the Parthian capital
Ecbatana. For the protection of his rear and left flank, he set in place in 37-36 a
masterly system of client states (see 49.32.3n), neutralized and won over the
support of King Artavasdes of Armenia, and subjected to Roman rule the arc of
territory in the Caucasus region from the Euxine to the Caspian by conquering
the Ibres and Albanoi (thus assuring himself an alternate route north of
Armenia). Though Dio states (49.25.1) that Antony first probed the Euphrates
line on the east, it was rather the northern approach that was deemed necessary\
because, as the dbcle of Crassus in 53 had demonstrated, it was perilous for the
Roman legions to cross the Euphrates, which was heavily garrisoned by Parthia
and was characterized by flat terrain affording decided advantages to the Parthian
cavalry. Antony needed to be assured of accessibility to water, food, and
supplies. Therefore, he opted for a mountainous terrain where Parthian cavalry
was useless. The decision, accordingly, was to invade Parthia from the north,
through Media Atropatene. The accession of Phraates IV in 38/37, and the flight
of a section of the Parthian nobility as a result, provided Antony with the
political leverage he sought: support of the eminent Parthian noble Monaeses
(cf. 49.23.5n), through whom he thought he could overthrow Phraates.
The geographical and climatic problems for Roman armies in the area were
formidable. Armenia had few roads, and its winters were severe, while the
summers were very dry, with extremely hot days and cold nights. Conditions in
Media Atropatene (modern Azerbaijan) were similar, but the summers were
longer and the winters shorter, and there were three good roads. See Biircklein
Quellen 74-79; Gnther Beitrge 1-13; Bengtson Partherfeldzug 4-9; D. Timpe,
"Die Bedeutung der Schlacht von Carrhae," MH 19 (1962), 120-123.
Antony began moving his host in the spring of 36, at the end of April or
early in May. From Plutarch's time (Ant. 37.4; 38.2) it has been customary to
criticize Antony (as, for example, do Mommsen and Gardthausen) for beginning
military action in Media too late in the _year, considering the distance to be
covered and the unanticipated problems. See Biircklein Quellen 69; Syme
Revolution 263-264; Tam in CAH 10.73; Holmes Architect 225-226 ("The
Alleged Procrastination of Antony").
Dio's account of the Parthian campaign must be viewed with caution, for
Octavian's propaganda falsified both Antony's general policy and the operational
 23.1-33.4: ANTONY'S PARTHIAN CAMPAIGN (36 B.C.) 57

details. Plutarch's extended account (Ant. 37.3-50.4) is more reliable and more
friendly to Antony; Dio's is one-sided, hostile to Antony, and oversimplified.
Biircklein opts for Livy (based on Dellius) as Dio's source, as does Manuwald in
part (Dio 226-227). For the sources in general, see Biircklein QuelleTTZttT,
65-69; Gardthausen Augustus 1.290-305; 2.149-157; Bengtson Partherfeldzug 9-
13; Tarn, CAH 10.71-75; Bengtson Antonius 184-205; Scardigh Rmer-
biographien 147. On Antony and the Parthians in general, see Sherwin-White
Foreign Policy 307-321 ; Scuderi Commente 79-80.

ANTONY'S ROUTE
Antony's first objective was the Median capital Phraaspa. The route he took
there was first worked out reliably by Kromayer, and this is now, with slight
modifications, the generally accepted one. Antony marched along the west bank
of the Euphrates from Zeugma (guarded by Parthians) north to Samosata, thence
to Melitene, then east across Armenia to Garana (modern Erzerum) or to
Artaxata, where he was joined by Canidius Crassus and his farces, thence'to the
Araxes River (on the border between Armenia and Media), which he crossed at
Djulfa (in the middle Araxes), thence south along the eastern side of Lake Urmia
to Phraaspa. The distance covered between Zeugma and Phraaspa was 8000
stades (Plut. Ant. 38.1; Str. 11.524), or about 1500 km. The siege of Phraaspa
began about three and a half months later, in mid-August. See J. Kromayer,
"Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des II. Triumvirates," Hermes 31 (1896),
70-104; Holmes Architect 223-225 ("The Route Which Antony Followed in His
Parthian Campaign"), with extensive bibliography; Gnther Beitrge 50-72;
Tarn, CAH 10.73-74; Debevoise Parthia 124; Bengtson Partherfeldzug 23-24;
Bengtson Antonius 184-205.

ANTONY'S FORCES
Antony reviewed his troops in Armenia, a total of ea 100,000 men: the largest
Roman army ever mobilized against Parthia (Plut. fat. 37.3). These included
60,000 legionaries in sixteen legions (including Canidius'), 10,000 Spanish and
Gallic cavalry, and 30,000 allied troops. On the number of legions, see Vell.
Pat. 2.82.1 (thirteen); Livy Per. 130 (eighteen); Anon. Vir. III. 85.4 (fifteen);
Floras 2.20.10 and Justin 42.5 (sixteen, the number most likely). The host was
supported by a huge baggage train (Plut. Ant. 38.2) with supplies and siege
engines (300 wagons for these alone), including a huge battering ram. For a
while Antony had the support of sizable contingents of infantry and of both
ordinary and mail-ciad cavalry under the command of King Artavasdes of
Armenia, who found it politic at the moment to offer Antony a base, passage,
supplies, and military aid, though his basic policy was pragmatic neutrality in
58 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
the face of Rome, Media, and Parthia. See Tarn CQ 26 (1932), 75-81; Holmes
Architect 125 n5; Debevoise Parthia 124-125; Bengtson Partherfeldzug 18;
Sherwin-White Foreign Policy 311 n37.

23.1 ...if|V 'ItoXiov: Dio emphasizes Antony's visit to Italy and

return to the province of Syria in 37. But, after the fall (if fall it was) of
Samosata, Antony returned to Athens and spent the winter of 38 there (with his
wife Octavia). (Josephus [AJ 14.447] is in error in stating that Antony went to
Egypt: cf. Brcklein Quellen 61 n5.) In the spring of 37 Antony went to
Tarentum with Octavia to negotiate there the treaty with Octavian, and he then
returned to Greece in the autumn, and from there to Antioch, where he spent the
winter of 37/36 (cf. Tarn, CAH 10.54). The predominant scholarly view is that
Antony married Cleopatra at this time (cf. CAH 10.66), but this is questionable.
On the problem of a marriage between Antony and Cleopatra and a possible date^
for it, see below, 50.3.2n; Appendix 6, "On the Marriage of Antony and
Cleopatra."

23.2 E a o t o : Reference by Dio to Sosius' "inactivity" through fear of

Antony's jealousy and anger should be compared with the similar observations
on Ventidius: see 49.21.In.

2 3 3 'Opt&Sti: Dio's explanation of the swift decline of the aged King

Orodes as due to grief over Pacorus' death is pure speculation. Orodes had been
ailing for a long time (Plut. Cras. 33.5; cf. Justin 42.4.11-14; RE 18.1.1142 =
Orodes 1 [Lenschau]). Dio here places his death, hastened by the machinations
of Phraates (cf. Plut. loc. cit; Ant. 37.1), under 37; but since Phraates came to
power soon after Pacorus' death in June of 38 at Gindaros, the death of Orodes
may belong already in 38.
poxrj: On Phraates IV, see RE 18.4.1994 = Parthia-(Schur); OCD
828. Despite Dio's adverse characterization of Phraates as voaimTaTo,
Augustus learned to deal with him during Phraates' long reign (until 2 B.C.)
through diplomatic channels (see, e.g., RG 29.2; 32.2; Bertinelli Roma 51-59).

23.4 de&o: According to Justin (42.4-5), Phraates had thirty brothers,

born from numerous concubines of Orodes. Some of these, the half-brothers
borne by the daughter of Antiochus of Commagene, were the ones killed by
him.

23S Movaon: On Monaeses see also Hor. Carm. 3.6.9; RE 16.43-44 =

Monaeses 1 (Ziegler). He is called by Tarn {CAH 10^71) "Warden of the
 23.1 -33.4: ANTONY'S PARTHIAN CAMPAIGN (36 B.C.) 59

Western Marches." This Parthian nobleman of high rank had fled across the
Euphrates to escape the bloodbath of Phraates. To Antony mis seemed a golden
opportunity to put on the Parthian throne a dependent client king, but his trust
in Monaeses reveals his misjudgement not only of the Parthian ethos but of the
fluidity of the internal struggle between nobles and common people, the rapid
shifting of allegiances, and the pragmatic compromises of King Phraates.
It is difficult here (chapter 24.2-5) to sort out the actual motives and
manoeuvres of the principalsAntony, Monaeses, Phraatesfrom Dio's own
speculations. Antony was apparently temporizing to gain time for military
preparations by using Monaeses and at the same time sending envoys to Phraates
to negotiate peace and the return of the military standards and Roman prisoners
taken when Crassus was defeated (see 40.20.4-25.4). Antony's mistake in his
dealings with Monaeses was not to have learned from the experiences of Crassus
in 53 and of Caecilius Bassus in 44/43 with the duplicitous behaviour of such
Near Eastern dynasts as Alchaudonius (or Alchaedamnius), an Arab sheikh (CAH
9.604), and Abgarus of Osrone. Dio says of Alchaudonius that he "always
attached himself to the stronger party" and offered his assistance to the highest
bidder, and of Abgarus that he pretended to favour Crassus but, having learned
Crassus' plans, reported them to the Parthians (see Dio 36.2.5; 40.20.1-2;
47.27.3-4). As for Monaeses, after learning Antony's plans he returned to
Parthia and assumed command of the Parthian forces against Antony (CAH
10.71-72).

24.1 KavtSio: For Publius Canidius Crassus, one of Antony's most loyal
partisans, see MRR 2.378-379, 397, 401; RE 3.1475-1476 = Canidius 2
(Mnzer). He was consul suffectus in 40, commanded troops for Antony at
Actium, and was later executed by Octavian. The aim of Canidius' campaign
against the people of the Caucasus was either "an operation of prestige*'
(Sherwin-White Foreign Policy 308) or to provide an alternate route for Antony
north of Armenia. His successes over the Ibres and Albanoj effectively isolated
King Artavasdes of Armenia, except on his southern flank bordering Parthia.
King Pharnabazus of the Ibres and King Zober of the Albanoi, mentioned here
by Dio, are otherwise unknown. On Canidius' campaign, see Asdourian
Beziehungen 58; Tarn, CAH 10.72; Gnther Beitrge 51 ni; Holmes Architect
122-125.

24.2 xpe...ic6Xei: The small token principality in eastern Syria that

Antony gave Monaeses, as a sort of "government in exile," consisted ofJhe three.
Greek cities of Larissa (modern Sizara), Arethusa (Restan), and Hierapolis
60 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

Cyrrhestike (Membidj). See Plut. Ant. 37; Debevoise Parthia 123. This
principality had been the realm of Alchaudonius.

25.1 i%\ 8e l v t v MT|8U>V a o i X i a 'Aptaovdo5i|v: For

Artavasdes, king of Media Atropatene, see 49.20.2n; PIR2 A 1162; RE 2.1309-
1311= Artavasdes 2 (Wilcken).
tip TTJ 'Apnev{a...flaoi>.e: On Artavasdes, king of Greater
Armenia, see RE 2.1308-1309 = Artavasdes 1 (Baumgartner); P1R2 A 1163.

25.2-4 'OKKIOW Z t o x i o v o : Antony's first blunder in his haste to

capture Phraaspa "without a blow" (Dio uses auxooei, a Thucydidean word
[2.81.4; 3.113.6; 8.61.1]) was to expose his entire transport train to danger by
leaving it guarded by only two legions (Vell. Pat. 2.82.2; Plut. Ant. 38.2-3)
without cavalry support. Apart from the loss of the two legions under Statianus
(10,000 men: Plut. Ant. 38.3), the destruction of the baggage wagons was
calamitous, for the dearth of suitable trees in the area made it impossible to
replace all the necessary siege engines (cf. Plut. Ant. 38.2; Debevoise Parthia
125). On Oppius Statianus, see RE 18.1.747 = Oppius 34 (Mnzer); and Dio
49.44.2n on the recovery of the standards lost after Statianus' defeat.

25.3 n p a o x o i : On P(h)raaspa, see 49.26.3-27.2n.

25.4 rioXeuoovoc: On Polemo, Roman client king of Pontus, see RE

21.1281-1285 = Polemon 2 (Hoffmann); E. Olshausen, "Pontes und Rom (63 v.
Chr.-64 n. Chr.)," ANRW 2.7.2.909-910; R.D. Sullivan, "Dynasts in Pontus,"
ANRW 2.7.2.915-920; Dio 49.32.3n, 44.3; 53.25.1; 54.24.5-6n.

25.5 6 Jiv 'Apuivio,: On the withdrawal of Artavasdes with his forces,

see especially Asdourian Beziehungen 58-59. Dio states that Artavasdes
withdrew before the ambush and attack on Oppius Statianus, while Plutarch
(Ant. 38.3; 39.1) says he left afterwards, and thus blames Artavasdes for
betrayal. Artavasdes became a topic in the counterpropaganda between Octavian
and Antony. Antony charged that Octavian tampered with Artavasdes and bought
him off; Octavian later criticized Antony's wily seizure of Artavasdes in 34 as a
treacherous act ("Antony's crime"). Antony had apparently not profited by the
similar experience of Crassus at Carrhae: when the Parthians attacked, the allied
kings withdrew their cavalry. See Colledge Parthians 40; Asdourian
Beziehungen 61-62; Brcklein Quellen 81-83; Scott MAAR 11 (1933), 37. At
the root is Antony's misjudgement of Artavasdes' effort to maintain neutrality.
 23.1-33.4: ANTONYS PARTHIAN CAMPAIGN (36 B.C.) 61

26.2 ovuotXebv a i a i v : On the skirmish with the Parthians, Dio says

vaguely that few were killed by Antony's forces. Plutarch (Ant. 39.5) says that
eighty were killed and thirty captured.

26.3-27.2 xoXipKei: Phraaspa (variant spellings: Praaspa, Phraatu,

Phraata, Pharaspa), chief city and royal capital of Media Atropatene; its location
is still under dispute. See RE 20.737-738 = Phraaspa (Schmidt); Bengtson
Partherfeldzug 24-31; Scuderi Commento 83. The siege of Phraaspa (which
reads in Dio like a stereotype of a siege) began in mid-August and was abandoned
in mid-October (Tarn, CAH 10.74), after a stalemate of two months. Antony,
hampered by loss of his baggage wagons, was beset by lack of siege engines and
provisions, then bedeviled by losses of foraging detachments and by disciplinary
problems. Frontinus (Str. 4.1.37) gives precise details of the disciplinary
punishments ordered by Antony: two cohorts in charge of the agger that was
burned by the enemy were punished by decimation (cf. Dt's SeKdxeuo
Tiva of 49.27.1)that is, one out of each ten, picked by lot, was killed by his
fellow soldiersand rations of barley (cf. Dio's Kpin.) instead of wheat were
ordered for the rest; one centurion of each cohort was put to death; and the
legatus in charge was dismissed in disgrace. See Plut. Ant. 39.7; Plb. 6.38.2;
G.R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (London, 1969), 119-120; Debevoise Parthia
127 n25; CE. Brand, Roman Military Law (Austin, 1968), 106-107.

27.3 OJCOVSV: The passage highlights the cunning and treachery of

Phraates in offering a truce contingent on Antony's lifting his siege of Phraaspa.
At the same time Dio underscores Antony's gullibility in being taken in by the
deception, as well as his military and diplomatic failure. On the anti-Antonian
slant of Augustan propaganda here, see Scuderi Commente 82, 84.

28.2 xhv 'Apueviav: Dio's treatment of 0ie retreat from Media is

limited and superficial, as compared with the copious treatment of Plutarch (Ant.
40.4-49.4). The withdrawal, in the Median winter, tqok twenty-seven days from
Phraaspa to die Araxes River on the Armenian border (Plut. Ant. 50,1; Li vy
Per. 130). The route (for which the guide was a Mardian deserter: Plut. Ant.
41) was different from the invasion route: shorter (at least according to Plutarch),
and close to the hills of Tabriz, where there were inhabited villages available for
provisioning. On the retreat in general, see Tarn, CAH 10.74-75; Debevoise
Parthia 128-131.

29.2-31.1 xfyr te %eXAivi\v: Antony's testudo manoeuvre, as protection

for the legionaries against Parthian arrows, is treated briefly, by Plut. Ant. 45.2;
62 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

Florus 2.20.6; Fron. Str. 2.3.15. Dio's extended, yet elementary treatment is
characteristic: his military knowledge was not professional, but rather bookish
and prone to stereotypical battles and sieges. Similarly, his comments on the
strategy and tactics of historical figures are designed to make him appear a
"military expert." Cf. Harrington Dio 126-130; M.M. Eisman, "Dio and
Josephus: Parallel Analyses," Latomus 36 (1977), 664. On the testudo tactic,
see RE 5A.1062 = Testudo 1 (Lammert); Bengtson Partherfeldzug 37-38.

31.1-2 Antony's Losses. The disaster for Roman military prestige was
greater than that of Crassus at Carrhae: it constituted a turning point in world
history, ending with finality Roman dreams of imitating Alexander's conquests
in the East. Tarn (CAH 10.73; CQ 26 [1932], 79) calculates that Antony lost
37% of his forces; Huzar (Antony 180) says 32,000 men, following Plut. Ant.
50.1 and 51.1 (20,000 infantry, 4000 cavalry in Media, and 8000 on the retreat ^
through Armenia); Velleius (2.82.3) puts the losses at one-quarter of Antony's
effectives; Livy (Per. 130) at two legions plus 8000; Florus (2.20.10) states that
hardly one-third of Antony's sixteen legions survived. Cf. Bengtson
Partherfeldzug 47; Colledge Parthians 38-39,43,45 (35,000 killed). Despite the
losses, Antony still controlled thirty legions.
Dio does not offer specific analysis of the failure of Antony's Parthian
campaign, as does Plutarch (Ant. 37 .4; 38; cf. Bengtson Partherfeldzug 40: "his
plan was built on sand"). Aside from poor timing, inadequate knowledge of the
topography and weather, and little understanding of the Armenian and Parthian
mentality, he put excessive pressure on his legionaries (cf. the long march of
8000 stades), and he made the faulty decision to separate himself from his
baggage train. See Bengtson Partherfeldzug 32,40; Tarn, CAH 10.72.

3L3 xei|utaai: Dio states erroneously that the army wintered in Armenia,
when in fact they proceeded directly to Syria (Brcklein Quellen 60).

31.4 KXeoxaxpac: Dio does not provide the information that Antony sent
instructions for Cleopatra to meet him at Leuke Kome (Plut. Ant. 51.1), on the
coast between Berytus and Sidon.

32.1-2 crjun: On the propaganda barrage on both sides at this time, see
Scott MAAR 11 (1933), 36. Dio's emphases here are pointed: after his failure
Antony went to Egypt; Octavian, after his successes in Illyria, returned to Rome
(49.38. In).
 23.1 -33.4: ANTONY'S PARTHIAN CAMPAIGN (36 B.C.) 63

32.2 SieSp'uXovv: "they spread rumours." Cary in the Loeb edition

mistranslates as "discussed it"

323 Svvaoxetac: Though Dio mentions Antony's system of client states

at this pointafter the Parthian dbclethese arrangements were made before
the expedition. Antony in 37/36 placed on a firm basis his earlier partial,
makeshift system of client rulers, begun in 42/41 and 39 (cf. Tarn, CAH 10.33-
34, 51-52). In the winter of 37/36, while at Antioch with Cleopatra, he erected
a masterful structure of client states based on four major appointments of able
kings: [ 1 ] Amyntas, king of Galatia, Lycaonia, and parts of Pamphylia, Pisidia,
and Phrygia (on Amyntas, see also 47.48.2; 50.13.8; 51.2.1-3n, 7.4); [2]
Archelaus, kingof Cappadocia(cf. 51.2.1-3n); [3] Polemo (see also49.25.4n),
king of Pontus (to which was added Lesser Armenia up toi the Halys River); and
[4] Herod, king of Judaea, who was effectively installed in the middle of 37 (see
49.22.6n). Dio here does not include Polemo and Herod, nor the array of lesser
client princes.
It is noteworthy that, in these four major cases, Antony did1 not follow the
Roman custom of making appointments from the existing royal houses, but
rather founded in each case a new dynasty, with the aim-in part-of tying them
in a patronage relationship to himself. With regard to Archelaus, Antony
executed Ariarathes X of Cappadocia (ANRW 2.7.2.1147-1149) for disloyalty
during previous Parthian invasions (Dio here [49.32.3] says only eicaA.(Dv,
"removing him"). The story about a liaison between Antony and Glaphyra (cf.
Martial 11.20.3: quod futuit Glaphyram Antonius) stems from Octavian's
propaganda machine (see Magie Roman Rule 2.1286; Scott MAAR 11 [1933],
24-25). With regard to Amyntas, he was not, as Dio intimates, in an inferior
position as "secretary," for he commanded troops in the role of strategos. Dio
may be in error also at 49.33.2, 44.3, in suggesting that Polemo did not get
Armenia Minor until 34 or later (see Tarn, CAH lf).7Q nl). For the
continuation of Antony's system by Octavian in jits essentials after 30, see
51.2.1-3n. On Antony's system of client rulers in (general, see Huzar Antony
148, 157-161; T.R.S. Broughton, "Roman Asia Minor," in Frank Economic
Survey 4.588-590; Buchheim Orientpolitik 49-68, 97; Magie Roman Rule
1.432-435; 2:1282-1288; Rossi AntonioX 15-123; Bowersock Augustus 42-61
("Kings and Dynasts"); M.R. Cimma, Reges socii et amici populi Romani
(Milano, 1976), 275-289.

3 2 . 4 - 5 The First Donations to Cleopatra. On the donations- to

Cleopatra in general, see J. Kromayer, "Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des
zweiten Triumvirats, III: Zeit und Bedeutung der ersten Schenkung Marc Antons
64 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
an Cleopatra," Hermes 29 (1894), 571-585; Syme Revolution 260-261;
Buchheim Orientpolitik 68-74; J. DobiaS, "La donation d'Antoine Cloptre
en l'an 34 av. J.-C," Mlanges Bidez, Univ. Libre de Bruxelles, Annuaire de
l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientale 2 (1934), 287-314; H.U.
Instinsky, "Bemerkungen ber die ersten Schenkungen des Antonius an
Kleopatra," Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson (St Louis, 1953),
2.975-979; PJ. Bicknell, "Caesar, Antony, Cleopatra and Cyprus," Latomus 36
(1977), 325-342; Huzar Antony 196-200; M. Stern, ed., Greek and Latin
Authors on Jews and Judaism 2 (Jerusalem, 1980), 362 415; Scuderi
Commento 77-79.
Octavian's propagandists exaggerated the grants to Cleopatra by Antony, in
order to highlight his enslavement to her. (Dio himself stresses that what hurt
his reputation was not his military setbacks but his liaison with Cleopatra.)
But, in fact, it would appear that Antony over the years was reluctant, cautious,
and pragmatic in this matter. Though Dio knew that there were at least two
separate donations (see 49.41.1-3n), he has here lumped together, for moral
effect, various stages of gifts given to Cleopatra, recording them all after his
account of Antony's return from the campaign in Media at the end of 36.
Eusebius (Chron. [Schoene] 1 pp 169-170) dates the first donations between 1
September 37 and 31 August 36. Dio is silent here about a marriage between
Antony and Cleopatra (on the date of the marriage, see below, 50.3.2n, and
Appendix 6, "On the Marriage of Antony and Cleopatra"). The twins Alexander
Helios and Cleopatra Selene were at this time about four years old (Ptolemy
Philadelphia was bom in 36). Plutarch (Ant. 36.1-2), like Dio, treats Antony's
territorial gifts summarily, lumping them all together without chronological
definition. Josephus' treatment (AJ 15.79, 91-95; BJ 1.361-362) is more
detailedand more reliable.
We must bear in mind Antony's motives for the grants to Cleopatra from
37 to 34: because he could not rely on Octavian (who was. since 36, imperatnr
of forty-five legions and a huge navy: see 49.13.1-14.2n), Antony had need of
other sources of military support, supplies, money, and ships. In fact, by 36
Cleopatra had brought peace and prosperity to Egypt, assuming a new title:
"Queen Cleopatra, the Goddess, the Younger, Father-loving, Fatherland-loving"
(BGU 14.2376.1-2,20-21). See H. Maehler, "Egypt Under the Last Ptolemies,"
BICS 30 (1983), 7-8. Further, Antony desired to punish the client kings,
peoples, and cities that had sided with the Parthians. The first of these lands
given to Cleopatra were coastal and timber areas, suitable for building a fleet: the
Iturean realm with its capital Chalcis (after the execution of King Lysanias for
pro-Parthian activity); Damascus; part of the territory of the Nabataean Arabs
taken as punishment for the aid given by King Malichus- I to the Parthians. (We
 23.1-33.4: ANTONY'S PARTHIAN CAMPAIGN (36 B.C.) 65

do not, in fact, know precisely when this land was given to Cleopatra: Dobia&
[op. cit.] assigns this to the spring of 34.) This territory may have been a
stretch of the coast of the Red Sea (see 51.7.1M). Josephus (A/ 15.79, 92; BJ
1.362) places the grant of part of Judaea in early 34 (Buchheim [Orientpolitik
72] states that parts of Judaea and Nabataea were ceded before the beginning of
the Armenian expedition of 34). The enmity between Cleopatra and Herod may
have been a motive, but there were surely practical reasons also that involved
Antony's military needs. Other lands mentioned in this connectionPhoenicia,
Cilicia, Coele Syria, Cypruswere also important for ship-building (cf. Str.
14.684): they were given to Cleopatra in 37/36 (Buchheim Ortentpolitik 73-74;
Instinsky, op. cit. 978-979) or in the spring of 34 (DobiaS, op. cit. 313-314).
DobiaS posits a third grant, after Antony's return from Armenia. Dio is the only
source that mentions Cyrene and parts of Crete. Dio, incidentally, refers to
Cyprus twice (also at 49.41.1-3n): Cleopatra obtained th island in 44; Antony
removed it from her in 41; and between 37 and 34 she regained it (BickneU, op.
cit. 325, 342, places this grant early in 35, at Leuke Kome: see 49.3 1.4M).
In sum, Antony's grants were motivated fundamentally by his military
needs; very little Roman provincial territory was involved; and Antony had
plenary authority to readjust territory of client states. Octavian had the same
authority in the West, but between 43 and 34 he made no such adjustments,
except to convert Mauretania into a province after the death of King Bocchus
(49.43.7n).

THE YEAR 35 B.C.

This year's account is devoted almost entirely to res externae, mostly Octavian's
campaigns in the North, with a very brief look at res internae at the end
(49.38.1-2).

33.1 b x e x e u o a v : This Sextus Pompey was (he eldest son of the like-
named philosopher Sextus Pompey; see RE 21.206P = Pompeius 19 (Miltner).
On L. Cornificius, see 49.6-7, 43.8n.

33.1-2 TOV rioXucova: On Polemo of Pontus, intermediary between

Antony and Artavasdes of Media Atropatene, a potential ally, see 49.25.4n; on
his reward of Lesser Armenia, 44.2-3n. On Antony's later success in enticing
Artavasdes of Armenia into his presence and entrapping him, see 49.39.2-40.3.

33.3 The Mission of Octavia. Dio's treatment of this event, designed to

put Antony into a bad light, is quite summary and deceptive, even inaccurate
66 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
(Plutarch's version, Ant. 53.1-54.1, is more credible). While it is true that the
mission of Octavia was, in part, a political manoeuvre orchestrated by Octavian,
it is not true that Antony was brusque with Octavia from the start. She left Italy
early in 35 (March) to go to Antony with supplies for his troops, with a corps
of 2000 soldiers (niggardly enough after Antony's massive losses in 36), and
with political proposals. Octavia stopped at Athens; Antony, instead of
hastening to his Roman wife, wrote her to wait for him there (he did not, though
Dio so states, send her back at once). Antony went instead to Alexandria to
confer with Cleopatra. Only after this did he send Octavia back to Rome. See
Buchheim Orientpolitik 84-88; CAH 10.77.

33.4 SovXeve: On the charge against Antony of servitium amoris, see

51.9.5n.

34.1-38.4: OCTAVIAN'S ILLYRIAN CAMPAIGNS, 35-33 B.C. (cf. Map 3)

Apart from the specifics of the military operations involving the conquest
of Dalmatia, two matters of importance need to be treated here: Octavian's
motives for this war, so soon after the exhausting Sicilian War; and the scope
and achievements of these campaigns.
It is dubious (pace Syme, "Augustus and the South Slav Lands" [see
below], 17) that Octavian's purpose was to protect his flank in the northeast in
the event of war with Antony (cf. Wilkes Dalmatia 49 nl). Basically, Octavian
kept to the forefront the need to win the favour of Italy. Although the tribes in
the unpacified northeast and along the Illyrian/Dalmatian coast were guilty of
non-payment of tribute, more serious was the problem of the security of Italy,
especially in that sectorthe easiest for invaders to enter. For tribal groups
there had unleashed terror by ravaging Roman cities on the coast (especially
Aquileia and Tergeste) and Roman colonies in Dalmatia, particularly after the
withdrawal of Roman garrisons for the campaigns at Philippi and the Sicilian
War. Important factors were also Octavian's need to acquire military glory
(especially if this could be won at the expense of external foes rather than a civic
enemy) and to aggrandize his image as field commander, as well as the
expectation of booty that was held out to the troops. There were massive
numbers of troops in the legions, whose discipline, training, and battle-
worthiness were at stake. The campaign may also have been undertaken as an
inheritance from Julius Caesar, who had planned operations in this region
(Wilkes Dalmatia 48), just as Antony was the heir of Caesar's planned campaign
against Parthia.
 34.1-38.4: OCTAVIAN'S ILLYRIAN CAMPAIGNS ( 3 V ^ . C . ) 67

Octavian, in short, had no master plan in this region, and he did not enter
upon a major campaign of conquest. See Vell. Pat. 2.78.2: Caesar per haec
tempora, ne res disciplinae inimicissima, otium, corrumperet militent, crebris in
Illyrico Delmatiaque expeditionibus patientia periculorum bellique experientia
durabat exercitum ("Octavian at this time, in order to prevent idlenessa factor
very detrimental to disciplinefrom corrupting the troops, was keeping the
soldiery tough by frequent expeditions in Illyricum and Dalmatia, exposing the
army to undergoing dangers and the experience of campaign conditions in actual
war"). With Velleius' durabat exercitum, cf. Dio 49.36.1: va...oxpoTieta
aoiqi. Woodman (Velleius 192-196) analyzes the relation between the passage
of Velleius and Dio 49.36.Iff, but interprets the former as referring mostly to
the activities of Octavian and Asinius Pollio in the region from 39 to 38.
Appian {III. 16) records Octavian's summary to the Senate of his campaigns in
Illyricum and Dalmatia: "Hereportedto the Senate that, while Antony had no
success, he had freed Italy from savage tribes that had repeatedly harassed it"
G.O. Hutchinson, "Notes on the New Gallus," ZPE 41 (1981), 38-41, argues
that Gallus' reference in the Qasr Ibrm papyrus to a victory isi to Octavian's
Illyrian campaign.
The scope of the campaign was relatively limited in area andrestrictedin
intensity (see map in Holmes Architect, facing pl31). Dio is misleading in his
account because he has in mind the provinces of Pannonia and Dalmatia in his
own time, their character and geographical extent. Though Dio states otherwise
(50.24.3-4n, in the contrived speech he puts into Octavian's mouth before the
Battle of Actium), the Romans did not reach the Danube line at this time. Dio
had a special interest in the history of this region, because he had been governor
of Dalmatia and Pannonia Superior. Thus he exaggerated the campaign of
Octavian in 35, implying that the foundations of the province of Pannonia
Superior were laid at this time (cf. Schmitthenner Historia 7 [1958], 230). On
Dio's knowledge of the region of Pannonia Superior, cf. 49J.36.4: pyco uaOv
ooxe Kal ap^a OTV o5a-...o8ev atcpicoc nvxa x rat' avro
eiSca ypdqxo ("having practical understanding because I governed them, ...as a
result of which I write with accurate knowledge of all matters concerning
them").
On the date when this section as a whole was incorporated in Dio's work,
see Millar (Study 209), who believes that it was inserted after "the completion of
the whole work," and that this "is the only example of a whole passage inserted
a good number of years after the original composition of the work;" cf. Letta
Ricerche (1979) 130-131, 166-167. T.D. Barnes ("The Composition of Cassius..
Dio's Roman History" Phoenix 38 [1984], 248) argues that Book 49 in its final
68 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

form, with the above personal comments, was written not before ea 225, and
after Dio had left Pannonia Superior.
In 35-33 B.C. the furthest penetration was Siscia on the Save River; in 34-
33 Octavian did not go much beyond the coast in the south (he did not, for
example, cross the Dinaric Alps). In fact, as compared with Antony's march of
about 1500 km through Armenia and Media in 36, Octavian in 35 covered only
about 200 km (from Senia, oyer the Camian Alps, to Siscia), and in 34 about
60-70 km (from Burnum to Setovia: cf. Veith Feldzge 109).
The source for the narrative of the Illyrian campaign was in the last
instance, whether directly or mediated, Augustus' autobiography, both in Dio
and in Appian ///. 14-28. In both treatments, events are viewed with Octavian
ever at the centre. This focus prevails even though there had previously been
some activity by others in the northern and southern sectors: "Augustus did not
recount others' actions but his own" (App. ///. 15). It is noteworthy thatV
Augustus in his autobiography dealt only with the campaigns conducted against
the tribes which "caused him the most difficulty" (App. ///. 16-17; Wilkes
Dalmatia 49-50).
On the Illyrian campaigns and the sources, in general see: J. Kromayer,
"Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats, V: Die illyrischen
Feldzge Octavians," Hermes 33 (1898), 1-13; Veith Feldzge; G. Zippel, Die
rmische Herrschaft in lllyrien bis auf Augustus (Leipzig, 1877; rpt. Aalen,
1974), 225-235; M.P. Charlesworth in CAH 10.83-88 (with map 6, facing
p83), 938-939 (bibliography); Holmes Architect 130-135 (with excellent map
facing pl31); Schmitthenner Historia 7 (1958), 189-236 (with bibliography);
J.J. Wilkes, "The Military Achievement of Augustus in Europe with Special
Reference to Illyricum," University of Birmingham Historical Journal 10 (1965),
1-8; Wilkes Dalmatia 46-58 (map on pl8); R. Syme, "Augustus and tfie South
Slav Lands," Danubian Papers (Bucharest, 1971), 13-25; A.M. Malevanij, "The
Illyrian Campaign of Octavian (35-33 B.C.)," VDI 140 (1977), 129-141 (with
summary in English).
Arguments for a master campaign of extended scope will be found in E.
Swoboda, Octavian und Illyricum (Vienna, 1932), counter to which see the
review of R. Syme, JRS 23 (1933), 66-71 (= Danubian Papers 135-144); S.
Josifovi, "Der illyrische Feldzug Octavians," ZAnt 6 (1956), 138-165
(summary in German); N. VuliC, "Contributi alla storia della guerra di Ottaviano
in Illiria nel 35-33 e della campagna di Tiberio nel 15 a.C," RSA 7 (1903),
487-500; Idem, "The Illyrian War of Octavian," JRS 24 (1934), 163-167.
For the sources: Blumenthal WS 35 (1913), 116; A. Mighali, "Le
memorie di Augusto in Appiani Illyr. 14-28," AFLC 21 (1953), 197-217.
 34.1-38.4: OCTAVIANS ILLYRIAN CAMPAIGNS (35-33 B.C.) 69

34.2 dXaoooi...Tavp{oKOi, Atvpvoi... ' I x u S e : Dio names

Alpine tribes in an arc movingfromthe western Alps eastward to die Dalmatian
coast. He was concerned mostly with the Illyrian tribes in the region between
Istria in the northeast and Epirus in the south. Hence the inclusion of die
Salassi is odd, except that operations were conducted against them
simultaneously with die major push into Illyricum. They were a subalpine tribe
in northwestern Italy, of the Dora Baltea in the Val d'Aosta, key to die Alpine
passes of the Small and Big St Bernard (cf. Schmitdienner Historia 7 [1958],
207-211). Dio mentions them earlier, in frg. 74.1. They were subdued by M.
Valerius Messalla Corvinus in 34-33 (see 49.38.3n); but it was not until 25 that
they were finally pacified, by A. (?) Terentius Varro, who sold 44,000 of the
Salassi into slavery (53.25.3-5; Str. 4.205-206). The Celtic Taurisci,
subjugated by Octavian in 35, were southwest Pannonian tribes. The tribal
name Taurisci disappeared after all of Pannonia was pacified in 12-9, being
supplanted by die individual town names (see G. Alfldy, 'Taurisci und Norici,"
Historia 15 [1966], 224-225,238-239). The Liburni, on the Adriatic coast, were
another Illyrian people well known for dieir piratical activity. For these tribal
groups, see Wilkes Dalmatia 153-191.
The Illyrian lapodes (in modem Croatia) inhabited die region from Istria to
the Una River (see RE 9.724-727 = lapodes [Vuli]), living in the Cisalpine area
as well as over the Carnian Alps as far north as Siscia.
Octavian's route in 35 was as follows: From Senia (modern Senj, or
Zengg), a Libumian port on the Croatian coast, to Monetium (Brinje), Avendo
(Crkvinje), and Arupium (Vital, or Prozor); over die Carnian Alps, to reach the
Transalpine lapodes; to Terponus (Gomje Modrus"), their stronghold; to Metulum
(Vinica Hill, near Ogulin), and Siscia (Sisak). See Wilkes Dalmatia 50-53;
Veitfi Feldzge Karte 1, for a map of me campaign of 35.
I /
34.3-5 Tive xv edvtoov: On Octavian 'js handling of the mutiny
after the Sicilian War, cf. 49.13.1-14.2n. Some ojf those! cashiered in Sicily
were allowed to reenlist for service in the Illyriao region. Not all of these
disciplinary problems were confronted by Octavian in Illyricum at diis time (see
49.35.1: "diis happened later"). Dio's principal aim here is to show that me
troops were taught salutary lessons for their insubordination. On those sent as
colonists to Narbonese Gaul, see J. Kromayer, "Die Mtiitrcolonien Octavians
und Caesars in Gallia Narbonensis," Hermes 31 (1896), 16-17; CAH 10.88; P.
Jal, "Le 'soldat des guerres civiles' Rome la fin de la Rpublique et au dbut
de l'Empire," Pallas 11 (1962 [1964]), 2-15.
70 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

35.2 MtovXov: On the siege of Metulum, the precise location of which is

uncertain. Appian gives a considerably more detailed account than Dio (///. 19-
21). Sec RE 15.1505-1506 = Metulum (Fluss); Holmes Architect 226-227
("The Site of Metulum"). Dio calls Metulum a polis, but the use of this term
for inhabited centres in Illyria at this time is, with the exception of the
Libumian coast to the south, premature (Wilkes Dalmatia 183-184): Metulum
was a hill stronghold, the meeting place of the Iapodian tribal elders. From
Appian (///. 20) we learn that Agrippa was present at the siege of Metulum.
Hanslik (RE 9A.1240 = Vipsanius [Agrippa]), following Kromayer, holds that
Agrippa was not involved in the land warfare in Illyria but commanded the fleet
in Adriatic waters. '
Octavian's fall to the ground at Metulum became a famous incident (cf.
Pliny HN 7.148; App. ///. 20; Suet. Aug. 20.1; Floras 2.23.7). Valuable is
Veith's map of the siege (Feldzge, facing 27). X
The capitulation and destruction of Metulum resulted less from Roman
military success than from internal dissension among the Iapodes (Wilkes
Dalmatia 51). Octavian's exposure to personal danger was, as Veith (Feldzge
110) points out, an unusual risk for ancient generals (Alexander the Great took
this risk often; Caesar, only twice; Hannibal, never).

36.1-2 riavvovio'u: Dio introduces "Pannonia" here without historical

support: Octavian did not reach the Pannonians. Dio's location of them jtpo xfi
AeX.|iax{t, along the Danube from Noricum to Moesia, accords with conditions
and terminology of his own day (Wilkes Dalmatia 56).

36.3-4 pY<p fUx6flbv...ol5a: This is an important passage because of

Dio's affirmation of personal, first-hand knowledge of a Roman province: "This
I know not just from hearsay or reading only, but I learned it from actual
experience as the result of having in fact been their governor. Indeed, after my
governorship in Africa I governed Dalmatia (of which my father also was
governor for a time); and I was appointed to what is called Pannonia Superior,
and consequently I write with exact knowledge of everything about them." And
yet he tells us so littlcthat is germane. Was it family vanity, nostalgia, or his
memory of the relatively uncivilized life in "underdeveloped" Pannonia that
motivated this statement? Dio was governor in Dalmatia, then Pannonia
Superior between ea 224 and 228, so this provides a terminus post quern in the
matter of the date of composition of his history (or of only this statement, as an
addition?). On the importance of this passage for the date of composition of the
History in the view of T.D. Barnes, see "The Composition of Cassius Dio's
 34.1-38.4: OCTAVIAN'S ILLYRIAN CAMPAIGNS (35-33 B.C.) 71

Roman History," Phoenix 38 (1984), 247-248. On the knotty problem of the

date of composition, see the Introduction to this volume, pp. 11-12.
Velleius Paterculus, who served mere under Tiberius in the revolt of A.D.
6-9, has a more favourable view of the Pannonians (2.110.5-6): that, though
they were very warlike, some were educated and knew Latin. On Roman
attitudes to the Pannonians, see J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens (London,
1979), 66, 70. A. Mocsy ("The Civilized Pannonians of Velleius," in Rome
and Her Northern Provinces, ed. B. Hartley and J. Wacher [Gloucester, 1983],
169-178) offers a plausible explanation of Velleius' more favourable judgement:
his view of the early Romanization of the Pannonians may stem from his
acquaintance with the aristocracy, especially in the urban centre of Siscia. In
part, he may have exaggerated their adoption of Roman culture to vindicate
Tiberius'difficulties later in suppressing their insurrection.
- ! !
36.5-6 xvvou: Dio's derivation of-the- name "Pannpnian" from the Latin
panni ("rags") has, as he well knew, no basis, though he apparently saw with
his own eyes the patchwork garb of the Pannonians. On natvcc, as some
Greeks (e.g., Appian) called them, see Schmitthenner Historia 7 (jl958), 215.

37.1 ZiOKiov: The capture of Siscia (Sisak) in Croatia, at the confluence of

the Save and Colops (Kulpa) Rivers, was the most important victory of
Octavian in the campaigns of these years. On the road from Emona to Sirmium,
it was to become the key to Pannonia Superior, and its most important city. On
Siscia, see RE 3A.362 = Siscia (Fluss); for a plan of the siege, Veith Feldzge,
opposite 47.
Dio and Appian differ on the motive for the attack on Siscia: Appian
stresses the internal dissension between the intransigent common people and the
leaders of the city who were ready to collaborate with the Romans. They also
differ on the matter of the boats: Dio says that the bfats were used in the siege,
which lasted thirty days; Appian (///. 22) that they \^ere obtained for future use
against trans-Danubian peoples. Cf. Wilkes Dalmatia 52-53.

3 7 3 Tiepiov idfpqt: Tiberius' great canal, which made an island of

Siscia, was cut probably in 12 B.C., during his campaign there (Wilkes
Dalmatia 52; Millar Study 209, cf. 35).

37.5 " I c t p o u : Cf. 50.24.4, and on 49.34.1-38.4, regarding Dio's

misconception that the Roman conquests at this time "extended to die Danube
proper.
72 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

37.6 Mtivv: On Menas, an important figure in the Sicilian War, see

49.1.3-5n.
t a &XXo Itavvoviieav: Dio's statement that all of Pannonia
capitulated after the fall of Siscia is incorrect. At this time the Romans did not
advance beyond Siscia.

38.1 Ooiov rjiivov: Cf. 49.38.3. He was the father of C. Fufius

Geminus, consul suffectus 2 B.C., and the grandfather of C. Fufius Geminus,
consul A.D. 29, but is otherwise unknown. See RE 7.208 = Fufius 13 (Groag).
iq thv 'P6|urv: Octavian returned to Rome late in 35, at the end of the
fighting season. The eitivvKia voted to him was deferred to 29, when he
celebrated his triple triumph, including one (Dio says) over Pannonians,
Dalmatians, and Iapodians and neighbouring tribes. See 51.21.5-6n; cf.
Schmitthenner Historia 7 (1958), 218 n3. y
'OKtoMNHf ...Aioutu Octavian's grantto his wife Livia and to
Octavia (as Antony's wife)of freedom from guardianship (tutela) and of
sacrosanctitas was an extraordinary step. Only once before had a comparable
status been achieved by a Roman woman, Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi. It is
the forerunner of the later separate status of women of the imperial house,
though Augustus as princeps did not institutionalize this status. The long
separations of the triumvirs from their wives may have also motivated the move
of Octavian. Dio says that Octavian made the grant, but, of course, a
confirming lex was necessary.
The only other Roman women who enjoyed these privileges were the
Vestal Virgins, but Bauman (RhM 124 [1981], 174-178) rightly points out that
the Vestals got the privilege of sacrosanctitas later, on the model of Livia and
Octavia. On the parallel of the privileged status of Vestal Virgins and women of
the imperial court, cf. 47.19.4 and 56.46.2 (Livia); 59.3.4 (Antonia and Gaius'
sisters in A..D. 37); and 60.22.2 (Messalina). It is an attractive theory that
Octavian took this action when Antony's liaison with Cleopatra and his
infidelity to Octavia became more blatant, perhaps with news of Antony's
"marriage" to Cleopatra. Scardigli argues that its purpose was to counter
Antony's oriental politics, and'to elevate Octavia (and Livia at the same time) to
a status competitive with Cleopatra's. See B. Scardigli, "La sacrosanctitas
tribunicia di Ottavia e Livia," AFLS 3 (1982), 61-64.
On this historic step of Octavian, see Mommsen StR 2.819 n3; F.
Sandeis, Die Stellung der kaiserlichen Frauen aus dem julisch-claudischen Hause
(Diss. Giessen, 1912), 12-13, 66-67; Bauman RhM 124 (1981), 174-178, 181.

/
 34.1-38.4: OCTAVIAN'S ILLYRIAN CAMPAIGNS (35-33 B.C.) 73

THE YEAR 34 B.C.

This rather briefly treated year deals mostly with res externae, especially
Antony's activities in the East. There is a brief end-chapter on res internae.

38.2 TJ|V Bpertaviav: In the first two decades of the "Augustan

Peace," indeed immediately after the Battle of Actium and the annexation of
Egypt, enthusiastic plans were in the air for massive expansion of the empire on
all frontiers. The image of Alexander hovered large over Rome at the time. Cf.
Verg. Aen. 1.279: imperium sine fine; Anon. Paneg. in Mess. 135-150
(composed 31/27 B.C.). See M. Reinhold, The Golden Age of Augustus
(Toronto, 1978), 160; M.G. Morgan, "Imperium sine finibus; The Romans and
World Conquest in the First Century B.C.," in Panhellenica: Eskays in Ancient
History and Historiography in Honor qfTruesdell S. Brown* ed; S.M. Burstein
and L.A. Okin (Lawrence, Kansas, 1980), 143-154. On plans for an expedition
to Britain before 30 B.C., cf. Horace Epod. 7.7; Verg. \Georgj 1.30, 3,25; A.
Momigliano, JRS 40 (1950), 39-41. On other cancelled expeditions against the
Britons, cf. 53.22.5, 25.2.

383 MeooXa: On Messalla, see Glauning Anhngerschaft 16-17, and

Dio 49.1.In, 16.1n; 51.7.2-7n; on his conquest of the Salassi, see App. ///. 17.
Schmitthenner (Historia 7 [1958], 234-236) argues that Messalla was sent
against die Alpine Salassi not during the Illyrian campaign, but rather after
Actium. In general, Dio overlooked the achievements of Octavian's legates,
especially those who pacified the regions northeast of Aquileia up to Emona
(modern Ljubljana). Undoubtedly there were military operations in the
northwest in these years (cf. CAH 10.85; Schmitthenner op. cit., 211).
xoii AeXudxo: In the campaign of 34-3? (begujn by Agrippa, who
returned to Rome to assume the aedileship [49.43.1-pn]), Dio turns to Dalmatia.
His account is an exceedingly compressed summary jof the military events in the
region (49.38.2-4 under 34 B.C.; cf. 49.43.8 under 33). It is noteworthy, in
defining the scope of Octavian's activities there, that he did not cross the Dinaric
Alps. His route ran through Burnum to Promona (modern Teplju), to
Synodium, to Andetrium, to Setovia. See App. ///. 25-27; Wilkes Dalmatia 53-
54; for a map of the campaign, Veith Feldzge, Karte IL

38.4 xv Kaioapo xpcoTivoi: Octavian was wounded at the siege of

Setovia by a stone that struck his knee (App. ///. 27). On the disciplining of the
troops at this time, see App. ///. 26. Dio appears to be documenting the
 i
74 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

slackening of traditional discipline in these unstable times, as well as the

traditional methods of curbing this. Cf. Antony's measures at Phraaspa about
the same time: decimation and distribution of barley (49.27. In).
Tavpo EtcmJUo: On Statilius Taurus (consul suffectus 37, with
Agrippa), see MRR 2.3%; Dio 49.14.6n; 50.13.5n. Statilius Taurus celebrated
his triumph ex Africa on 30 June of 34 (EJ 2 p34), and so came to Illyricum at
the earliest in the second half of the year (cf. App. ///. 27). For the completion
of the subjugation of Dalmatia in 33 by Taurus and Octavian, cf. 49.43.8; App.
///. 28.
To sum up the achievements of the campaigns in Illyria, it is clear that
Octavian attained his limited objectives. The accomplishments were indeed
modest: this was not a spectacular campaign of conquest. Though he did not
mount a grandiose operation like Antony's against Parthia, Octavian's prestige
was enhanced; parts of the Illyrian coast were colonized; many tribes, fnqrn
Savoy to Montenegro, were subdued (App. ///. 16-17 lists them); the military
standards lost by Gabinius in 48 were restored (cf. App. III. 28; RG 29.1); and
the security of Italy in the northeast was strengthened. Though later writers, like
Appian in his Illyrike, magnified the campaign, contemporaries paid little
attention, even though the principal source was Octavian's autobiography.
There were neither coins nor a poem to commemorate the return of the standards
(as later, with those recovered from the Parthians). For 35-34, Livy (Per. 131)
has only that "Caesar conquered the Iapodes, Dalmatians, and Pannonians;" for
33 (Per. 132), that "he conquered the Dalmatians." Cf. Schmitthenner Historia 7
(1958), 227-228; Wilkes Dalmatia 56-57. On the later campaigns in Illyria,
Dalmatia, and Pannonia, see especially 54.31.2-3, 34.3-4, 36.2-3; 55.2.4 (11-9
B.C.); and 55.28.7-34.7; 56.11-15 (A.D. 6-9).

39.1-41.6: ANTONY'S ACTIVITIES IN THE EAST (cf. Map 2)

39.1 a&nupv: Antony resigned from the consulship of 34 on 1 January,

in absentia; Octavian similarly in 33, but in person (49.43.6).
'AtpOtvov: L. Sempronius Atratinus, consul suffectus for 34, had
been a partisan of Antony, commanded ships for him in the Sicilian War in 36,
then went over to Octavian (see Fadinger Begrndung 261 n2). For Atratinus,
see RE 2A. 1366-1368 = Sempronius 26 (Mnzer); Glauning Anhngerschaft 7-
8; MRR 2.385, 402, 410. He was consul from 1 January to 30 June; the Fasti
Magistrorum Vici list Antony as consul Ordinarius, but the Fasti Venusini list
L. Sempronius as the Ordinarius instead (EJ 2 p34). For coins (of 36-35)
showing Antony and Atratinus as consuls designate for 34, see BMCRep. 2.515-
516, cf. 401. It is noteworthy that Octavian, in connection with the
 39.1-41.6: ANTONY'S ACTIVITIES IN THE EAST (34 B.C.) 75

resignations from the consulship,receivedbetter treatment in the official records:

all the extant Fasti record him as Ordinarius for 33.

39.2 Tv 'Apuiviov: On Artavasdes, see 49.25.1n, 40. In, 44.4n. It is

possible that Antony planned to invade Armenia in 35, but his plans were
disrupted by the activities of Sextus Pompey (CAH 10.77). Alexander Helios
(see 49.32.4-5n, 41.1-3n, 44.2-3n) would have been about six years old at this
time. On Q. Dellius, here called notiuc ("favourite") of Antony, see on
49.19.1-22.1. Does Dio here allude to a cynical remark of Dellius in
Cleopatra's presence?that while he, a favourite of Antony, drank vm ordinaire
in her entourage, Sarmentus, an urbane wit and one of Octavian's favourites (a
freedman of Maecenas who illegally conducted himself as an equestrian), drank
Falernian wine in Rome. See Plut. Ant. 59.4: "Sarmentus was a JtotiyviMV
naioapiov of Octavian, what the Romans call delicia."

39.3 NvKJtoXiv: Nicopolis, the metropolis of Armenia Minor (Classical

Sites 626), was now in the realm of Polemo of Pntus. On Augustus'
Nicopolis and other foundations of the same name, see 51.1.3n. On the
propaganda connected with "Antony's crime" (Tac. Ann. 2.3.1: scelus Antonii,
qui Artavasden regem Armeniorum, specie amicitiae inlectum, dein catenis
oneratum, postremo interfecerat; cf. Vell. Pat. 2.82.3: Artavasden fraude
deceptum), see 49.39.4-6; Scott MAAR 11 (1933), 37; CAH 10.78; Dio
49.41.5; 50.1.4; and Appendix 7, TThe Propaganda War of 32-31 B.C."
'Aptd^orta: For Artaxata (modern Artashat), royal capital of Armenia
on the Araxes River, see Classical Sites 97.

39.6 'Apxirv: Artaxes (Artasias), eldest son of Artavasdes of Armenia,

fled to King Phraates in Parthia. On the fate of Artavasdes in 31, see 51.5.5n.
For Artaxes, see 49.40.1, 44.4; 51.16.2. j
i j
40.1 rr|v 'Apueviav: Antony's aim in occupying Armenia was not only
vengeance for Artavasdes' withdrawal in the Parthian campaign of 36 (49.25.5n),
but booty and, above all, to secure the frontiers with Media and Parthia.
Together with Artavasdes, Antony captured his younger sons Tigranes and
Artavasdes, who were also taken to Alexandria. Armenia, annexed by Antony,
was the only province he added to the empire; but itremainedin Roman hands at
this time for only two or three years (see 49.44.2-3n, 44.4n). On Antony's
Armenia devicta coins, see BMCRep. 2.525. One must conclude mat nothing
lasting was achieved by Antony in 34. Cf. M.-L. Chaumont, "L'Armnie entre
76 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49
Rome et l'Iran, I: De l'avnement d'Auguste l'avnement de Diocltien,"
ANRW 2.9.1.71-194, esp. 73-84 ("La politique d'Auguste en Armnie").

40.2 Ttiv xov M'fjov Suyovtpa: On Iotape, see 51.16.1-2n.

Artavasdes of Media Atropatene offered Antony an alliance because of a quarrel
with Phraates over booty, the threat to him on the part of Artaxes, son of
Artavasdes of Armenia, and the proximity of Roman legions in the new province
of Armenia. On Antony's intervention in Armenia and his alliance with the
Medians at this time, see CAH 10.78-79; Bengtson Partherfeldzug 44-46;
Asdourian Beziehungen 62-63; Buchheim Orientpolitik 90-91; Holmes Archi-
tect 129-130, 137. Artavasdes remained true to the alliance (see 5t.5.4-5n [30
B.C.]; cf. CAH 10.79 nl).

40.3-4 xiviicioi t i o i v : "a sort of triumph." In narrating the precision

by Antony into Alexandria, Dio concludes his extensive contrast between
Antony's failures and Octavian's successes. The character of this ceremony
marks it as a Hellenistic Dionysiac procession with aspects of a celebration of
conquests (for Antony as the New Dionysus, see Rossi Antonio 114, 143-169;
Cerfaux & Tondriau Culte 302-304). Plutarch {Ant. 51.4) writes e6puxue\)-
aev. Octavian's propaganda in Rome may well have treated the event (cf.
49.41.5, where Dio uses vuaycTipia rather than the technical mvcia) as an
un-Roman transfer of the traditional triumphal procession to Alexandria.
Antony's procession, with oriental splendour, ended in the presence of Cleopatra
as the New Isis, seated on a gilded throne. It is noteworthy that the lives of
Artavasdes and of his wife and children were spared. On the "triumph," see CAH
10.79-80; Scott MAAR 11 (1933), 37; Fadinger Begrndung 150-153.

41.1-3 The Donations of Alexandria. This pronouncement took place

in a separate ceremony, in a gymnasium in Alexandria (Plut. Ant. 54.3-6). On
the territorial distributions, see 49.32.4-5n. The titles bestowed were, of course,
flamboyant. The designation of Cleopatra as -yuvauca, "wife," of Caesarif
this was actually in Antony's statementis intended to strengthen the claim that
Caesarion was the only legitimate son (and heir) of Caesar. On Caesarion, see
50.1.5, 3.3-5n; 51.6.1-2, 15.5-7; and on Cyprus, 49.32.4-5n. The lands
assigned to Alexander Helios (then about six years old) included the new
province of Armenia and the Parthian Empire, thus proclaiming him (in
anticipation) overlord of all rulers east of the Euphrates. Cyrene, given to
Cleopatra Selene, was at this time a Roman province. Ptolemy Philadelphus
(aged two) received, besides Syria and Cilicia, mostly territories already in the
 39.1-41.6: ANTONY'S ACTIVITIES IN THE EAST (34 B. C.) 77

hands of Roman client kings, thus making him overlord of all client rulers and
dynasts west of die Euphrates.
It is obvious that Antony was here pursuing both Hellenistic religious
practices and royal dynastic policies. But the contradictions in his behaviour
were glaring, for he was acting with the plenary power {imperium) of a Roman
magistrate (triumvir). See Rossi Antonio 115-123. Coins of Antony and
Cleopatra at this time feature, on the obverse, Antony's bust with the legend
Armenia devicta, and, on thereverse,Cleopatra's head with "Queen of Kings and
Her Sons Who Are Kings:" see BMCRep. 2.525; Crawford Coinage 1.539
543; cf. E.W. Gray, "The Crisis in Rome at the Beginning of 32 B.C.," PACA
13 (1975), 16-17.

41.4-5 Aouvtio Kai...ooio: Dio here anticipates the manoeuvres of

Domitius and Sosius, adherents of Antony in Rome as consuls early in 32
(50.2.2-3n). On the propaganda aspects of these moves, see 50^1-5. Dio here
alludes to dispatches of Antony to Rome reporting on his victory in Armenia
and annexation of a new province (which required approval by vote of the Roman
People), and on his territorial assignments to Cleopatra and her children, for
which he sought confirmation. The "parliamentary" manoeuvres described by
Dio suggest that Antony was so out of touch with opinion at Rome that
Domitius Ahenobarbus and Sosius took it upon themselves to prevent public
knowledge of Antony's letters. On the Armenian affair and the propaganda
concerning the scelus Antonii, see 49.39.3n.

41.6 tfi ftaoX.f) 7p*iv: On Antony's offer, in letters to the Senate, to

resign the triumvirate and transfer power to the Senate and Roman People, cf.
50.7.l-2n; Suet. Aug. 28.1. E.W. Gray (PACA 13 1975], 17-18) notes,
properly, that Dio carelessly takes up here events mat must have occurred later,
at the end of 33, when Antony sent dispatches for the guidance of Ahenobarbus
and Sosius, as a "trial balloon." See M.P. Charlesworth, "Some Fragments of
the Propaganda of Mark Antony," CQ 27 (1933), 173,177. On Octavian's offer
in 36, after his victory over Sextus Pompey, to dismantle the triumvirate and
return to constitutional normalcy (App. BC 5.132 [548]), see R.E.A. Palmer,
"Octavian's First Attempt to Restore the Constitution (36 B.C.)," Athenaeum
56 (1978), 315-328.
7'' ' COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

42.1-43.8: ROME, 34-33 B.C.

42.1 xf| 'ApoSitfl xfi yeveBXitf:. Venus Genetrix's temple was

dedicated by Julius Caesar on 26 September 46 (Dio 43.22.2); the accompanying
Ludi Veneris Genetricis, or Ludi Victoriae Caesaris (a new type of annual games
without sacral character, to commemorate his deeds) were assigned by Caesar to a
non-priestly collegium. Because of the turmoil of the ensuing years, this body
did not fulfil its duties, so that Octavian conducted the games himself in 44 (Dio
45.6.4). The dates of the annual celebration were 20-30 July. See RE Supp.
5.629-630 = Ludi Publici (Habel); RE 8A.863- 868 = Venus Genetrix (Koch).
oi iSxaxoi: Dio emphasizes this because the games were still neglected
by the collegium. The two consuls (suffecti from 1 July) were Paullus
Aemilius Lepidus and C. Memmius (MRR 2.410).
n o X i a p x o i : For the praefectus Feriarum Latinarum ano\Dio's
highlighting of precedents for the use of equestrians in important posts by
Octavian, see also 49.16.2n.

42.2 TTTV 0TOGCV IT\\ IlaXoD KaXouuivn.v: On Paullus Aemilius

Lepidus, see RE 1.565-566 = Aemilius 82 (von Rohden); P1R2 A 373; MRR
2.410. He was the husband of the Roman matron Cornelia celebrated by
Propertius (4.11). Aemilius Paullus went over to Octavian after Philippi, and
campaigned with him against Sextus Pompey (Suet. Aug. 16.3; Dio 54.24.3n).
Dio's emphasis "at his own expense" is faulty. In fact, the basilica was rebuilt
at Julius Caesar's expense in 55/54 under supervision of Aemilius Paullus'
father; the consul suffectus of 34 merely finished off and dedicated the Basilica
Aemilia. Pliny (HN 36.102) calls it one of the most beautiful buildings in the
world. See Shipley MAAR 9 (1931), 47; Nash Dictionary 1.174-179.
'Aypinjcac: On Marcus Agrippa, the paragon of adiutor imperii to Dio
and Pliny the Elder, see 52.2-13.
Saicdvrj otxeup: Again Dio emphasizes "at his personal expense."
Actually, Agrippa at this time would have used part of his manubiae (booty)
from the Illyrian campaign. For the Aqua Marcia, see Nash Dictionary 1.48-51.
Frontinus (Aq. 9) states that Agrippa restored the Aqua Marcia in 33 during his
aedileship, but see Reinhold Agrippa 47 ni5.

42.3 uetpiaov: Dio's emphasis on the generosity and moderation of

Agrippa and Aemilius Paullus, neither of whom ever celebrated a triumph, is set
forth by way of contrast with the many lesser figures who triumphed in 34 and
33: T. Statilius Taurus ex Africa, 34; C. Sosius ex ludaea, 34; C. Norbanus
Flaccus ex Hispania, 34; L. Marcius Philippus ex Hispania, 33; Appius
 42.1-43.8: ROME, 34-33 B.C. 79

Claudius Pulcher ex Hispania, 33; L. Cornificius ex Africa, 33. Dio tries to

make his point with the remark eXaxiornv tiv pjpiv EXOVTE ("holding a
most insignificant command"), but this is mere rhetoric. Dio surely had his
own times in mind, especially the exactions for "crown gold" on the part of
emperors for their triumphs: he says these triumphatores of the late Republic
exacted crown gold jcap tv ST|U<DV ("from the cities," which Cary [Loeb]
mistranslates "from foreign states").

THE YEAR 33 B.C.

In one of the shortest year-accounts of the History, Dio devotes more attention
to res internae, especially Agrippa's famous aedileship, than to Antony's
activities in the East.
43.1 yopavno: On the last famous aedileship of the Rpublic, indeed
the most famous in Roman history, see Reinhold Agrippa 47-52; Roddaz
Agrippa 145-157. In its concern for the beauty, conveniences, and entertainment
of the capital, it was, in effect, the announcement of the coming of the new
regime. The importance Octavian attached to his curatorship of Rome is
indicated by the fact that Agrippa became (curule) aedile after his first consulship
(Pliny HN 36.104) and was detached from the campaign in Illyria for mis
purpose. On the aedileship of Agrippa, see F. Heiligenstaedt, Fasti aedilicii inde
a Caesaris nece usque ad imperium Alexandri Severi (Halle, 1910), 36-37.
wv: Agrippa's willingness to undertake the aedileship is contrasted
with the frequent lapse in this office because of the expense it involved. See
49.16.2n on the enormous burdens on the aediles (cf. Cic. De Leg. 3.7: aediles
curatores urbis, annonae, ludorumque sollemnium, "aediles: caretakers of the
city, grain supply, and customary games").
HT|Sv x too Snuooioi): "taking nothing from: th treasury." But the
financing for these princely expenditures would -have c0me not only from
manubiae but also in part from the state treasury and in part from Octavian's
resources. Agrippa himself was very wealthy, and his wife was the daughter of
the Roman magnate Atticus.
xc te VKOVIIOV: I.e., the Cloaca Maxima (cf. Pliny HN 36.104;
Str. 5.235).

43.2 SeXva Kal...<poei8i STjuiouprnM-OTa: "the dolphins and

egg-shaped ornaments." The seven dolphins were used to indicate the seven laps
of the chariot races in the Circus Maximus. Dio erroneously attributed to_
Agrippa also the ova, for they had first been introduced in 174 B.C. Perhaps
new "eggs" were provided (of bronze?). Cf. Reinhold Agrippa 50 n30; W.K.
 80 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

Quinn-Schofield, "Ova and Delphini of the Roman Circus," Latomus 25 (1966),

99-100; A. Balil, "Ova, Delphini, Roman Circus," Latomus 25 (1966), 867-
870.

43.2-4 xot SiScDKe: The lavishness of Agrippa's munificence, detailed

here by Dio (olive oil, salt, free baths, games at festivals, free barbers, tickets
for prizes, objects placed in the open for the people to scramble for), is a
precursor of the largess in Rome by the emperors. It is curious, however, that
no mention is made of distributions of grain.

43.3 -rirv Tpotov: For the LususTroiae, see RE 13.2059-2067 = Lusus

Troiae (Schneider). Cf. Verg. Aen. 5.545-603.

43.5 To axpoX&fOv to t e y6x\xaq: Dio here makes bur passing

reference to what must have been a concerted "police action" in nie city against
practitioners associated with oriental influences and religions. Superstitions
burgeoned during the civil wars, and those whom Dio here calls "astrologers and
practitioners in magic" could readily be associated with Antony. See Roddaz
Agrippa 154-155. On Dio's attitude toward such "charlatans" in Rome, see
-52.36. l-3n.
With regard to Agrippa's famous aedileship, it is noteworthy that Dio
prefers to stress his selfless dedication and largesses, slighting the large, more
lasting scope of his generosity: repair of the Aqua Appia and Aqua Anio Vetus;
construction of a new aqueduct, the Aqua Julia, 700 cisterns, 500 fountains and
130 castella (catch-basins) for water distribution, and on these 300 figures of
bronze or marble and 400 marble columns (Reinhold Agrippa 48-52).

43.5 Xr\axei<f: I.e., followers of Sextus Pompey. This was virtually an

amnesty to win over ex-Pompeians to Octavian's cause against Antony. Dio's
comment that, as a result, "some were given a free hand to commit evils in the
future," is a simplistic, moralizing conclusion.

43.6 vnaxeiav: L. Volcatius Tullus (MRR 2.414; RE 9A.756-757 =

Volcatius 9 [Gundel]). Octavian resigned the consulship on the first day in order
to resume his campaign in Illyria; Antony did the same (in absentia) on 1
January 34 (49.39.In), occupied as he was with preparations for the invasion of
Armenia. Both Antony and Octavian appear to be vying with each other to
display their "republican" behaviour, by allowing other senators to hold the
prized consulship.
evxatpiSv: On Octavian's adlection of patricians, see 52.42.5n.
 42.1-43.8: ROME, 34-33 B.C. 81

43.7 B6K%OU: On Bocchus II, King of Mauretania, cf. 48.45.2n; 50.6.4n;

RE 3.578-579 = Bocchus 2 (Klebs). Made into a province by Octavian in 33
(the first province he added to the empire, shortly after Antony added Armenia),
Mauretania was granted to King Juba as his realm in 25 (Dio 53.26.2n).

43.8 AeXucVcai xavTeX exexeipcovto: Cf. App. ///. 28 for a

more detailed account of Octavian's campaigning in 33. Dio here resumes
briefly the events treated at 49.38.3-4 under 34 B.C.
o t o . . . ' O K t a o v i a v d : The Porticus Octavia in the Campus
Martius was originally built by Cn. Octavius in 168. It was rebuilt by Octavian
and dedicated without change of name (cf. RG 19.1, with Gage's commentary [p.
109]; Festus pl88 [Lindsay]). Dio here confuses it with the porticus built later
by Augustus' sister Octavia to replace the old Porticus Metelli, erected in the
Campus Martius by Q. Caecilius Metellus in 147; it was then renamed Porticus
Octaviae, and was associated with a library given by her in memory of her son
Marcellus (Nash Dictionary 2.254-258; Shipley MAR 9 [1931], 32-33; H.
Lauter, "Porticus Metelliporticus Octaviae: Die baulichen Reste," BCAR 87
[1980-1981], 37-46). For the distinction between the two porticoes, see Festus
loc. cit.
Dio is here very selective regarding the building operations of the
triumphatores in the years 35 to 33, and the many works of Agrippa and
Octavian. The following were active also: [1] C. Sosius reconstructed the
Temple of Apollo in the Campus Martius; [2] T. Statilius Taurus began his
stone amphitheatre in the Campus Martius (dedicated in 30: see 51.23. In); [3] L.
Marcius Philippus rebuilt the Temple of Hercules Musarum and the Porticus
Philippi around it in the Campus Martius; and [4] L. Comificius reconstructed
the Temple of Diana on the Aventine Hill. (We do not know when the last two
were finished.) See Shipley MAAR 9 (1931), 10, 24-32,47-48.

44.1 -4: ANTONY IN THE EAST (CONTINUED)

44.1 Tv MijSov: At the threat of the Parthians providing support for

Artaxes, son of Artavasdes of Armenia, Artavasdes of Media Atropatene requested
a conference with Antony. It is startling to see that Antony considered it
important enough to travel the long journey to the borders of the Roman
province of Armenia on the Median frontier, the Araxes River, for this
conference.
82 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 49

44.2-3 Ti)C 'Apfievio... i i v EXaev: In the dismemberment of

Armenia, part went to Artavasdes of Media, and part to Polemo (Armenia Minor,
cf. 49.33.2n), the intermediary in the alliance. On lotape, engaged to Alexander
Helios, who was now six years of age, see 51.5.4-5n, 16.1-2n.
crnjiea: "standards." For the events leading to their loss, see 49.2S.2-4.
Note that both Antony and Octavian retrieved Roman military standards in 34-33
(cf. 49.38.4n).

4 4 3 OXoviov: On L. Flavius, consul suffectus with C. Fonteius from 1

May 33, cf. Fasti Venusini (Ut. 13.1.136, 255, 508); MRR 2.414.

44.4 'Apttiv: On Artaxes, see 49.39.6, 40.1. Dio is deceptive in his

haste to make his point. It was probably not before 32/31 that King Phraates
took Media and restored Artaxes to the Armenian throne. (Artaxes at once V
massacred the Roman traders in Armenia.) Artavasdes of Armenia was executed
after Actium in 31, Dio says by Cleopatra, and his head was sent to the Median
king, Artavasdes (51.5.5n).
 BOOK 50

INTRODUCTION

For the dramatic and decisive events of Book 50spanning the twenty months
from the beginning of 32 (when the Triumvirate was officially at an end) to the
climactic Battle of Actium on 2 September 31we cannot identify with
confidence the sources that Dio used. Plutarch's treatment (Ant. 54-68) differs
substantially, because he sought to highlight the moral failure jrf Antony as a
negative exemplum, while Dio treats the struggle between thej two powerful
dynasts from Thucydidean perspectives, isolating details and structuring events in
accordance with his own conception of human nature andfhis proper function qua
historian, not biographer. j
In Dio's thinking the victory of Octavian (and with it the transition from
republic to monarchy) was brought about not by superior political
manoeuvering, nor the virtues and vices of the principals, nor foreign problems,
nor internal social and economic dislocations, nor the effects of Antony's
behaviour in the East that alienated diecisive sectors of the population of Rome
and the West (cf. Scardigli Rmerbiogtaphien 148-150; Rossi Antonio 155-
163). The basic determinant was the power struggle between the triumvirs
themselves. For men, Dio judges, are basically selfish and desire to dominate,
resorting to the use of force for self-aggrandizement, $nd ambition for sole power
is characteristic of human nature (see Appendix 1, ^'Human Nature' in Dio").
Thus the ensuing new era of "rule by one" was ushered ih as the result of an
inevitable contest for sole power. Dip viewed th| equalf sharing of supreme
power from the very beginning of the Triumvirate a^ catastrophic for the Roman
people and destructive of their libertas (see Manuwald Dio 65-76, on Books 45-
51), the "freedom" (i.e., protection of life and property) that they were to regain
under the monarchy. While he assigned to Cassius and Brutus high ideals, he
portrays the triumvirs Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian as equally!ambitious
ruthless, and unscrupulous, each seeking to out-manoeuvre and deceive the others
(cf. 47.1.1). "For three men or even two of equal rank who have gamed control
of such great power as theresultof war," he wrote (48.1.2), "tafind, harmony is_
difficult."
 84 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
The sharing of equal power between Antony and Octavian gave free rein to
elemental forces of "human nature," unchaining in both of them cupido
dominandi, drive for sole power. Dio is thus even-handed in depicting the
extravagant ambitions and manoeuvres of Antony and also the ruthless conduct
of Octavian in his march to complete power. Accordingly, though Dio regarded
monarchy as an historical necessity and the Augustan Principate as the model
constitution, he did not cover up the unscrupulous acts and machinations of
Octavian.
In particular, Octavian is portrayed by Dio as aiming deliberately at sole
power from the very beginning of his career, scheming to eliminate his rivals
(45.3-4; 46.52.2; cf. Manwald Dio 67-76,273). After the deposing of Lepidus,
the ensuing division of equal power by Antony and Octavian led ineluctably to a
claim for sole power (50.1.1): both aspired to personal domination (ISIODUEVOI),
and in every possible way strove to gain any advantage (itXeoveKTriaai TIJS
Thus, as a general principle, shared power constituted for Dio a flawed
arrangement. (Was he thinking also of such situations in his lifetime as the
joint rule of Caracalla and Geta, when breaches in the traditional hierarchical
principle and shared power in the principate led to destructive contests for sole
power?)
Accordingly, in Book 50 Dio does not dwell on the question of war guilt,
or treat the confrontation between the triumvirs as a legal and constitutional
issue, but rather singles out the quest for power as the overriding force. This
may explain, for instance, his scant interest in the exact date of the termination
of the Triumvirate (cf. Fadinger Begrndung 148, 205). It is true that
contemporaries may have viewed the struggle differently, as the clash of two
opposing ideologiesAntony's pursuit of oriental-Hellenistic monarchical
patterns, and Octavian's upholding of Roman traditions and constitutional forms.
Equipped with Thucydidean conceptions of historical explanation, Dio treats the
rivais' claims to patriotic motives and dedication to reorganization of the state as
but pretexts disguising their true motives: lust for power (cf. Fadinger
Begrndung 172-176).
Consistent with this analysis is the tenor and content of the matching
speeches (occupying almost half of the Book, chapters 16-30) put into the
mouths of Antony and Octavian before the Battle of Actium. Dio was, of
course, following the tradition in historical narration of preceding accounts of
battles with the exhortationes of the opposing generals (van Stekelenburg
Redevoeringen 104, 158), but he drew the contents of these two speeches
skillfully (whether directly or indirectly) from the polemical literature of the 40s
and 30s (cf. van Stekelenburg 99-104).
 INTRODUCTION 85

No other extant source for these events treats the motives and acts of the
combatants so realistically. Dio would appear in Book SO to have selected and
organized his materials to construct his own "realpolitical" interpretation.
Beginning in 32 B.C., he states (50.2.2): oSv et' iteKpyav-to, Xk' v-
tucpi) iroteudnaav, "they no longer concealed anything, but openly went to
war."

1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C.

Dio's evaluation of the struggle between Antony and Octavian was coloured by
his dedicated adherence to monarchy, and by his conviction that the sharing of
power by the two dynasts on an equal basis (SO. 1.1 crou) was in practice an
unacceptable form of government for the empire. Thus the contest between the
triumvirsa paradigm of inevitable struggle for supremacy by one leaderwas
but a prelude to "true monarchy" (uovocpxiav aicpirV), and the Roman state
remained in limbo, as it were, between the. paralyzed Republic
(TT\...SruiOKpar{a) and the fatally flawed dyarchy. ;
An acceptable chronology of the year 32 would be s follows:
1 February: meeting of the Senate at which one of the consuls, C. Sosius,
attacks Octavian in absentia (cf. 50.2.3n).
February/March: meeting of the Senate at which Octavian defends himself
and attacks Sosius and Antony; depaiture from the city of the consuls Sosius and
Domitius Ahenobarbus together with; numerous senators.
Late March/earlv April: arrival of the consuls and senators at Ephesus,
headquarters of Antony and Cleopatra.
April: Antony moves his headquarters to Samos.
April/Mav: Antony's deployment of his troops- and ships to southern
Greece. ; !
May: Antony and Cleopatra move their headquarters t Athens.
May/June: divorce of Octavia; defection of M. Titius, Munatius Plancus,
and others to Octavian; disclosure of the contents of Antony's will.
Summer: Antony stripped of the consulship for 31 and of his remaining
powers; oath to Octavian by Italy and the western provinces; mobilization.
October, declaration of war against Cleopatra.
Autumn: Antony and Cleopatra move their headquarters to Patrae.
See J. Kromayer, "Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats,
6: Die Vorgeschichte des Krieges von Actium," Hermes 33 (1898), 42-46; CAH
10.94-99.
86 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
1.1 8 St\|io...TTi...8'n(ioKpoT{o q>f|pn.xo: "the people had been ,
robbed of their republic." Dio treats the Triumvirate as transitional between
republic and monarchy. For his use of the word demokratia, see 52.1.In;
Espinosa Ruiz Debate 79-S4.
u,ovapxiav aicpifj: "monarchy properly speaking." For this
expression (or similar ones) as used by Dio, see 51.1.1-2n; 52.1.In; 53.17.1.
{j oot) III x xp6.y\iaxa elxov: "they still held power on an
equal basis." Though Dio appears here to be giving aretrospectivesummary of
the major military problems faced by the two dynasts since the elimination of
Lepidus (nex...xoxo), he is also taking a realistic view of the political
situation in the years from 36 to 31. Antony and Octavian "balanced" each
other, they were objectively "on an equal footing." Antony effectively controlled
the East, Octavian the West; their acta were honoured, and the auctoritas of each
was preeminent. V

1.2 lxo: On the death of Sextus Pompey in 35, see 49.18.2-6n.

6 'Apuivio: On the capture and deportation of King Artavasdes of
Armenia to Alexandria in 34, see 49.39.2-40.3n.
T...JtpoaJtoXejiT|oavxo tip Kaioocpi: I.e., the northern tribes
and Balkan peoples. The campaigns of^Otaviin^against thejn arejaarrated in
detail in 49.34-38.
npoo: On King Phraates IV of Parthia, see 49.23.3n.
Sfjuo ciKpinc SovXfbOri: "the people were actually enslaved."
Does the theme of "enslavement" of the Roman people stem from a pro-
Republican source used by Dio (as Andersen [Dio 50] argues; cf. Manuwald Dio
79)? Plutarch (Comp. Dmet. & Ant. 2.1-2) puts the blame squarely on Antony
for trying to enslave (KaxaSouXovuivov) the Roman people and deprive them
of their freedom (Xet>8ep{av). Florus, oriithe other hand (2.14.4), presents the
view that Actium was the beginning of "slavery" for the Roman people. But in
Dio's mind the civil struggle between Antony and Octavian robbed the people of
the libertas they had enjoyed under the old Republic; this was not restored until
therebirthof "true freedom" guaranteed by me true monarch (see 52.14.1 -5). Cf.
J. Bleicken, "Der Begriff der Freiheit in der letzten Phase der rmischen
Republik," HZ 195 (1962), 1-20.

1.2 aixicti...Kal OKTUpeic: On the propaganda exchanges between

Antony and Octavian, see below 50.2. In and Appendix 7, "The Propaganda War
of 32-31 B.C."
 1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C. 87
1.3 AxiSov...lsion: Lepidus' comptence as a triumvir had been the
province of Africa; Sextus Pompey held Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and (since the
Treaty of Misenum) also Achaea (48.1.3-2.1, 36.5). Cf. MRR 2.383, 388.

1.4 Kaactp : If Octavian actually made the accusation that Antony was
holding Egypt illegally, it was an improper charge, for Egypt as a client state in
the East was properly subject to Antony's imperium. Sextus' successful flight
from Sicily (49.11.In) is here put forth as an act of clemency on Octavian's
part. On Antony's deception of Artavasdes of Armenia, see 49.39.4-6.

1.5 i d xe SnpTiOvxo: On the territorial grants to Cleopatra and her

children by Antony, see 49.32.4-5n, 41.1-3n.
Kaiaapiavai On the problem of the paternity of Caesarion, see
49.41.l-3n; 51.6.1-2n. Involved in this claim wert not only Octavian's
testamentary rights as heir of Caesar, but also his use of the appellation divi
filius, "son of the deified one."

2.1 KM(koi dvTeveieXoov: "they made charges against each other."

Cf. Suet. Aug. 68-69. The stakes were so high that no avenue of propaganda
was left untried to win over public opinion. On the themes, methods and
effects of the flood of recriminations and invective between Antony and
Octavian, and the influence on Dio's version of the events of these months, see
Appendix 7, "The Propaganda War of 32-31 B.C."

2.2 xP^I"XTa...r8poiov, K( *l *f|v XOIXTJV TO xoX^ou x a p a -

oiceurtv...xoiovTo: "they collected funds and made the other preparations
for war." Antony's war chest was filled by Cleopatra's contributions, by those
of other client rulers, by the cities in the East, and by booty. For many years
the collection of tribute in the East had been under the supervision of Antony,
and it is not likely that in the last few tumultuous years He had sent the funds
collected to the public treasury in Rome. In any case, the "guns and butter"
policy of Octavian is evidenced, on the one hand, by the enonnous expenditures
of Agrippa (under title of aedile) on the public conveniences and entertainment of
the people of Rome (49.43. l-4n), and, on the other hand, by the extreme
methods employed by Octavian in Italy to finance war preparations: high taxes
on the income of landowners and capital levies on the property of wealthy
freedmen (50.10.4-5n; 51.3.3n).
Ao|i(-cio...Xatoto: On the two consuls ordinarii of 32, Cn. Domitius
Ahenobarbus and C. Sosius, see 49.22.3-6, 41.4-6. It was, of course, a great
88 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50

advantage to Antony to have two of his close adherents as consuls at this crucial
juncture.

2.3 ovjiopv xoXXtbv: "his many misfortunes." Dio alludes here to

Ahenobarbus' wrecked fama and auctoritas resulting from a piling up of
adversities and rebuffs, including his capitulation (with his father) to Caesar at
Corfinium in 49, his unjust condemnation as an assassin of Caesar (App. BC
5.62 [261]; Suet. Nero 3.1), his outlaw command of an Adriatic fleet against the
triumvirs, and the failure of the Parthian expedition of 36, in which he took part
(Plut. Ant. 40.5; cf. Syme Revolution 264, 268; OCD 361). He had obtained
amnesty through Antony, going over to his side before the Treaty of
Brundisium. Dio knew that he was seriously ill in the summer of 31 and that he
died of illness about the time of the Battle of Actium (50.13.6).
v atfi efr tfi voDUTrv: "on the very first day of the m o n t h ^
Dio's omission of the name of the month is unfortunate, for important
chronological determinations stem from which month he intended. Did he mean
1 January or 1 February? His use of vouur|v{a ranges from the designation of
the lunar phenomenon "new moon" (39.38.5; 60.26.5) to calendar dates (Dio
does not use the terms Kalends, Nones, Ides). He applies vouun,via sometimes
to mean the first day of any month, i.e., Kalends (e.g., 58.5.5: ev TIVI
vouurivioc). At times he indicates the first day of a specific month: January
(40.47.1; 51.20.1: v arji xfj to 'Iavowapiou vouuTyvia); April (60.11.6: tf\
TO 'AxpiXiou vowurivia); June (57.14.5: xfi to 'Iouviou vouutivla); and
August (60.5.3: TTJ ZOX> Avyovaxov vovurivia). But in most cases he used it to
designate 1 January, especially as the day of inauguration of new consuls
(36.42.3; 41.1.1; 42.27.1; 45.17.1, 9; 48.4.5, 33.4; 53.28.1; 55.8.1; 57.17.1,
18.3; 60.10.2) and annual rendering of oaths to the emperor and his family
(57.8.4-6; 58.17.2; 59.9.1-3). ,
The weight of the evidence would seem to point to 1 January, the
communis opinio. See J. Kromayer, "Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des
zweiten Triumvirats," Hermes 33 (1898), 41-42; U. Wilcken, "Der angebliche
Staatsstreich Octavians im Jahre 32 v. Chr.," Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss.,
Philos.-hist. Kl. (1925), 78; P. Wallmann, "Zur Zusammensetzung und Haltung
des Senats im Jahre 32 v. Chr.," Historia 25 (1976), 305-312; Fadinger
Begrndung 195 nl, who rejects all arguments for 1 February, on the grounds of
characteristic Dionian usage, and because Dio specifies the particular month if
the context demands it. But it is, nevertheless, possible that Dio was in error or
meant 1 February, a date supported by W. Kolbe, "Der zweite Triumvirat,"
Hermes 49 (1914), 280-283; Holmes Architect 234-235; E.W. Gray, "The Crisis
in Rome at the Beginning of 32 B.C.," PAC A 13 (1975), 17. The essential
 1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C. 89

arguments for 1 February are two: if Sosius' vigorous attack on Octavian had
occurred on 1 January, the negotiations for a compromise with the two consuls
by Octavian (cf. 49.41.4-5n) would not have taken place that month; and
Ahenobarbus was consul prior in January, after which Sosius rotated to the
prime position on 1 February (see on 50.1.1-9.6 above).
For the tribune (M.?) Nonius Balbus, see MRR 2.418. Dio is our only
source for his veto.

2.S ttotepov: Dio's vagueness throughout 50.2.4-7 about the timing of

Octavian's return to Rome and the authority by which he convened the Senate is
in keeping with his lack of interest in the constitutional questions of the conflict
(see Introduction to Book 50).
v uoq> TV bxd-tmv xl Sipoo pxiKO: "between the
consuls on an officiai chair." For the use of the sella curulis at games, cf. the
grant to Caesar for its use except at the games (44.4.2), and to Octavian and
Antony at the games (48.31.3); and therightof sitting in the Senate between the
consuls, granted to Caesar (43.14.5), and to emperors (54.10.5; 59.12.2;
60.16.3). Cf. RE 2A.1313 = Sella Curulis (Kubier); O. Wanscher, Sella
Curulis: The Folding Stool, An Ancient Symbol of Dignity (Copenhagen,
1980), 121-190.
Octavian had been voted, in 36, the right to sit on the subsellia (aGpa)
with the tribunes (49.15.6). His gesture of sitting between the consuls on a
8{<ppov pxiKv may have a bearing on his constitutional position in 32. Dio
seems to suggest that Octavian acted' with a sort of consular power, presumably
qua triumvir. But if the Triumvirate lapsed on 31 December 33, Octavian may
have been asserting de facto continuation of his authority as triumvir (without
the title), paralleling Antony's refusal to lay down all his powers. Cf. Brunt and
Moore Res Gestae 48-49; E. Gabba, "La data finale del secondo triumvirate,"
RFIC 98 (1970), 5-16. i

2.6-7 ol...tt*otoi: Sosius and Ahenobarbus werit to Antony's headquarters

at Ephesus, which they reached in late March or early April. At Rome they were
replaced by consules suffecti who were partisans of Octavian: L. Cornelius
(Cinna) and M. Valerius Messalla.

2.6 ouXeuTcav CK Xi-yoi: On 1 January 32 there were about 1000

senators in all. Figures on the number of senators who joined Sosius and
Ahenobarbus in fleeing to Antony remain unclear. The figure of 400 is
plausible (cf. CAH 10.95), though it is important to note (with P. Walimann,
"Zur Zusammensetzung und Haltung des Senats im Jahre 32 v. Chr.," Historia
90 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
25 [1976], 306-307) that not all adherents of Antony in the Senate left Rome to
join him. It is not likely that either Antony in the East or Octavian in Rome
had a firm majority of senators on his side. There were many "independents,"
who formed a sort of "swing vote" (Wallmann, op. cit 305-312).

3.1 veo^Koov: "compensated." Wallmann (op. cit. 306 nl3)

judiciously points out that this word does not imply a quantitative balance but
only a qualitative rough estimate. For the value of Titius and Munatius
Plancus, who knew all Antony's secrets (TO nppnxa ato irvxa),
outweighed the numbers who went over to Antony.
Tvtio...nXyKO: On Titius and Munatius Plancus, see 49.18.2-5n,
They would appear to have defected in May/June, after the divorce of Octavia (see
50.3.2n).
X
3.2 ouAJjv...Tiva: Dio's xiva regarding Antony's Senate in the East in
32-31 is derogatory. In Dio's mind such a meeting of a counter-Senate away
from Rome evoked the danger of the separation of the empire into two parts.
'OKIOODIO: Dio here synchronizes Antony's formal letters of divorce
to Octavia with the defection of Titius and Plancus to Octavian. Plutarch (Ant.
57.2) places die date after the arrival of Antony and Cleopatra in Athens. On the
approximate dateMay/Junesee Tarn in CAH 10.97; Fadinger Begrndung
129, 223-233; Kromayer Hermes 33 (1898), 46. On the shrill propaganda
concerning Antony's character that attended the divorce, see Scott MAAR 11
(1933), 36-37; J. Geiger, "An Overlooked Item of the War of Propaganda
Between Octavian and Antony," Historia 29 (1980), 112-114.
Dio makes no mention of a marriage between Antony and Cleopatra. But
it is virtually certain that Antony and Cleopatra entered into a marital
relationship, according to Macedonian law or Egyptian custom. The possible
dates have been proposed as 37/36, 34, or 32 B.C. On the knotty problems of
the date and the bigamous arrangement, see Appendix 6, "On the Marriage of
Antony and Cleopatra."

33-4 TQ Sia&fjictti: Dio's information about Antony's will is based

on selective emphases. He does not report, for example, that the will had been
entrusted to the Vestal Virgins and that Octavian bullied them into relinquishing
it to him (though this is alluded to in Antony's fictitious speech before Actium,
50.20.7; cf. PiurT/4nf. 58.3-4). Plutarch's version of the reception of
Octavian's illegal acts regarding the will runs counter to Dio's: he states that
most senators were stunned by them. Dio (50.3.4) was nevertheless fully aware
that what Octavian did was highly illegal (itapavo^mxatov). Fadinger
 1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C. 91
(Begrndung 234) calls attention to the Lex Cornelia de falsis (of 81 B.C.),
which mandated severe penalties for opening and reading the will of a living
person.
No one doubts that Antony had prepared a last will, as a sort of political
testament (Kienast Augustus 57-59). But since Octavian read the will in private
first (Plut. Ant. 58.3), and surely did not read it verbatim in public but rather
selected out of it what he deemed to be a most damning clauses, can we be sure
that what Octavian divulged was an accurate statement of the contents of the
will? P. Wallmann ("Zur Zusammensetzung und Haltung des Senats im Jahre
32 v. Chr.," Historia 25 [1976], 312) suggests mat Octavian revealed clauses of
the will to show that Antony's promise to restore the Republic was a sham.
The communis opinio of scholars is that the will produced.by Octavian
was authentic (Holmes Architect 246-247 ["Antony's Will"]; Scott MAAR 11
[1933], 41-43; M.P. Charlesworth, PCPhS 151-153 i[1933]| 6-7; Fadinger
Begrndung lAl-lOS; Johnson Propaganda 111-129). There is, however, a
minority view that the will produced by Octavian was a forgery (see Rostovtzeff
SEHRE [1st ed., 1926] 29, 494 n24; Sattler Augustus 19 n3|6; J. Crook, "A
Legal Point About Mark Antony's Will," JRS 47 [1957], 36-3$, who considers
it a "partial forgery"). The issue is joined by J.R. Johnson, "The Authenticity
and Validity of Antony's Will," AC 47 (1978), 494-503; contra, F.A. Sirianni,
"Was Antony's Will Partially Forged?," AC 53 (1984), 236-24T. Syme
(Revolution 282) concludes that 'theitrum of the matter is lost forever."
It is appropriate, however,! if one concedes the authenticity of Antony's
will, to ask whether it was valid under Roman law. If Cleopatra and her children
belonged to the category of peregrini, and Antony's marriage to Cleopatra was
not a iustum matrimonium, then what validity would attach to such a will? It is
naive to advance the possibility mat Antony was not aware of the requirements
of a valid Roman will. Is it possible that Antony, by his authority as triumvir,
bestowed Roman citizenship on Cleopatra and her children1, as proposed by Lily
Ross Taylor (AJP 80 [1959], 102-103)? Cf. rodk, pp. cit. 36; Johnson
Propaganda 115,118-125. Many such grants werejmade in this period. But is it
likely that Octavian's propagandists would not have exploited such a grant by
Antony? Did he make a posthumous grant of citizenship in his will? Johnson
proposed a way out of the dilemma by arguing that Antony used, as a legal
loophole, a military or quasi-military testament.

3.5 Kaioctpicovi: On the question of the legitimacy of Caesarion as

Caesar's son and heir, see 50.1.5n; 51.6.1-2n.
to xatoi: I.e., Alexander Helios, Cleopatra Selene, and Ptolemy
Philadelphus (see 49.32.4-5n; cf. Suet. Aug. 17.1). Surely Antony would not
92 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
have overlooked bequests to his eldest son Antyllus (by Fulvia) (51.6.1-2n,
15.5-7n), and to his daughters by Octavia, Antonia Maior and Antonia Minor, as
well as to Iulius Antonius, his younger son by Fulvia, who was being brought
up by Octavia.
Iv TE if) 'AXe^ovSpeio: On the joint mausoleum of Antony and
Cleopatra that was being built in the royal necropolis of Alexandria, see 51.8.6,
15.1n.

4.1 6p\)Xo6u,eva: "rumour mongerings." Dio is obviously sceptical of the

rumours and propaganda that Antony planned to transfer the seat of power to
Alexandria.

4.2 TO ox to fiAJLoi Xeyov: K.-E. Petzold ("Die Bedeutung des

Jahres 32 fr die Entstehung des Principats," Historia 18 [19691, 344-347) has
shown that this expression is equivalent to aoXoyev, and reproduces the sense
of the Latin consentire, consensus omnium , universi consentiebant. (In koine
Greek, in constitutional terminology, TO; ax Xyeiv = uvoia, consensus. )
It is noteworthy that, in AG 9, universi cives is translated in the Greek
ovicavTe oi jtoXexai, and in 34.1 per consensum universorum is translated
rata x eiix xcv urv TtoXeuv. Thus the expression is limited to
Roman citizens in the West (Petzold, op. cit. 346-351). Cf. M. Reinhold,
"Augustus' Conception of Himself," Thought Quarterly 55 (1980), 41-42:
Augustus' use was "an extra-constitutional statement, merely his own personal
assessment of the presumed will of the entire citizen body." Cf. also H.U.
Instinsky, "Consensus Universorum," Hermes 75 (1940), 265-278. Dio is here
emphasizing the shift in the views of the independents (referred to by him as
being K ueaou uov) after the reading of the will. The disclosure of the will
(50.3.3-4n) solidified among the senators a pro-Octavian majority that preceded
the declaration of national emergency, the oath of allegiance to Octavian, and the
declaration of war against Cleopatra. Cf. Fadinger Begrndung 206-210, 238-
240.

4.3 TTJv Te vxaTeiav: Antony and Octavian had been designated consuls
for 31 B.C. years before, in 39 (48.35.1; cf. 50.10.1).
tiv &XXT)V oooiav xoav ^eiXovio: "They deprived him of
all other power." The question of the precise meaning of ouoia here has
relevance to the issue of the legal termination of the Triumvirate. In Dio's
usage Jjo'uaia never means "magistracy," but imperium or potestas (e.g.,
censorial or consular [54.10.5], proconsular [41.34.2; 54.33.5; 58.7.4], and
tribunician [53.32.6]; see Magie De Vocabulis 76,78;,Mason Greek Terms 132-
 1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C. 93
134). In Augustan usage it translates (consular) imperium (RG 8.3, 4);
(tribunician) potestas (five times in the Cyrene Edicts of Augustus = Ej2 311);
or (tribunician) potestas and (proconsular) imperium (P.Colon. 4701.1, 10).
Cf. M.W. Haslam, "Augustus' Funeral Oration for Agrippa," CJ 75 (1979-
1980), 193-199.
Dio here can be referring only to such triumviral powers as Antony
effectively still used in 32. While a definitive solution of the problem of the
date of the legal end of the Triumvirate is not possible in the present state of the
evidence, since the necessary documents are not extant (cf. Tarn, CAW 10.59 nl;
Holmes Architect 245), still the weight of the evidence favours 31 December 33.
Nevertheless, Antony, like Octavian, continued to exercise the power of triumvir
in 32 (BMCRep. 2.526-531). Note especially a coin type (p531) with the
following legend: M. Antonius Aug(ur) Imp(erator) IUI Cos. Ten. Mvir R.P.C.
Antony had inscribed Cos. Ill even though his appointment for 31 was
abrogated, apparently after the divorce of Octavia in May or June.
See Appendix 8 for a discussion of "The Official Termination of the
Triumvirate." j
xoA.uiov...oK xnvav: "they did not declare him an enemy."
Cf. 50.6.1, 26.3-4. Though Antony was not formally declared a hostis by the
Senate, a vote on such a motion was actually taken. Appian (BC 4.45) reports
that a certain Sergius, who had been proscribed in 43 but was spared through
Antony's intercession, alone expressed a negative opinion openly as the motion
failed. Suetonius (Aug. 17.2 [cf. Oros. 6.18,3]) is careless in referring to
Antony as hosti iudicato; Augustus is realistic (RG 24) with his reference to
Antony as is cum quo bellum gesseram. Cf. Fadinger Begrndung 245-264;
Becher Kleopatra 31 and n 1.

4.4 KXeoxdxp tv jtXeuov... xT|YYE^Xav: The date of the

declaration of war against Cleopatra is October off 32 (Kfomayer Hermes 33
[1898], 46). Cf. Dio 50.6.1, 26.3-4. Like Plutarch \Am. 60.1), Dio dramatizes
the manoeuvres by emphasizing that the declaration of war was issued against
Cleopatra, not Antony. Nowhere, however, in the surviving sources are the
formal charges against Cleopatra spelled outfitjustification of a iustum piumque
bellum, pursuant to Roman public law. As Dio states elsewherein Octavian's
fictive speech before Actium (50.26.3)it was for her "acts" that Cleopatra was
declared a hostis. The bill of particulars would have included charges mat the
integrity of Roman territory had been violated by her acceptance of Antony's
territorial gifts to her and her children. More important, she was officially a
Roman client ruler in fide populi Romani, with official status as amicus et
socius populi Romani. From the beginning of her reign she had maintained a
94 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
correct role in fulfilling her obligations as a Roman vassal: in 42, for example,
she offered her resources to Octavian and Antony'against the "liberators;" she
responded to the summons {evocatio) of holders of the imperium (Caesar,
Antony). Up to October of 32 her aid to Antony at his orders was proper and
obligatory. But when he became officially a privatus, her position was rendered
perilous, and she exposed herself to the charges of betrayal of her fides and
obligations to Rome as client ruler, and thus to condemnation for the crimen
maiestatis populi Romani imminutae (i.e., treason). See Fadinger Begrndung
223-264; M. Reinhold, "The Declaration of War Against Cleopatra," CJ 77
(1981-1982), 97-103. It is noteworthy that Augustus does not mention her in
the Res Gestae.
On traditional and historical preliminaries of war, see J. W. Rich, Declaring
War in the Roman Republic in the Period of the Transmarine Expansion,
Collection Latomus 149 (Bruxelles, 1976), 56-118. \

4.5 TO 'Evttetov: I.e., the Temple of Bellona, before which the fetial spear
rite was performed. For a iustum piumque bellum to be waged, demand for
restitution was first necessary (res repetuntur. cf. Livy 1.32.5-14). Cleopatra
might have been summoned to Rome, in accordance with her obligation to heed
the evocatio of an Imperator ; but, of course, this was not done. Octavian
revived for the occasion the ancient fetial rite in order to dramatize the legitimacy
of a declaration of war against Cleopatra in the national interest. Octavian was
himself head {pater patratus) of the College of Fetials. On the fetial ritual, cf.
Livy 1.32.5-14; Cic. Rep. 3.23.35; R.M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy,
Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965), 127-129.
X7<p uv...IpYp Se: It is clear that Dio discounted the importance
of the official declaration of war against Cleopatra, for he proceeds to analyze the
acts and the weaknesses of Antony. JFor the massive propaganda campaign
unleashed by Octavian in a sort of prelude to a "holy war" against the East in
defence of Romanitas, see Appendix 7, "The Propaganda War of 32-31 B.C."
The flood of extravagant indictments and recriminations against Cleopatra
produced an image of her that has echoed through the pages of history and
literature ever since. These included lust, whoring, blatant luxury, drunkenness,
use of magic, witchery, and drugs, animal worship, and incest. See Hor. Epod.
9; Carm. 1.37; Verg. Aen. 8.696-700; Eleg. in Maecen. 1.53-54; Prop. 3.11.29-
58; Ovid Met. 15.826-828; Floras 2.21.2; Eutr. 7.7.1; Dio 51.15.4; Becher
Kleopatra 23-58.

5.1 SeScrXttTo: On Antony as "slave" lover of Cleopatra, see 51.9.5n.

For the use of ooitoiva as mistress of a slave in the papyri of the second and
 1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION. 32 B.C. 95

third centuries, see P.Oxy. 49.4; 1451.20; 1548.22; F. Preisigke, Wrterbuch

der griechischen Papyrusurkunden 1 (Berlin, 1925), 328.
YUlivaoiapxTjoai: Cf. Dio 50.27.1; Plut. Auf. 33.4 on Antony as
gymnasiarch also in Athens. Dio's point in stressing this is that, while
Octavian and Agrippa (as aedile in 33) devoted their energies on behalf of the city
of Rome, Antony performed civic duties for Alexandria (and wore in this
connection the official costume and insignia of a gymnasiarch of a Greek city).
Cf. B.A. van Groningen, Le gymnasiarque des mtropoles de l'Egypte romaine
(Paris, 1924); P.M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972) 1.97, 105,
794-796.
oopwpopuop: Actually the soldiers in Cleopatra's bodyguard, assigned to
her by Antony, were not Romans but Gauls (cf. Jos. A3 15.217). But Servius
(ad Aen. 8.696) states: Augustus in commemoratione vitqe suae refert
Antonium iussisse ut legiones suae apud Cleopatram excubarentieiusque nutu et
iussu parrent, "Augustus in his autobiography states that Antony ordered that
soldiers from his legions should be her bodyguard and obey her will and orders."
It is impossible in this matter to separate fact from propaganda. Cf. Fadinger
Begrndung 193-194. !

5.2 aoiXeiov: It is likely, however, that Antony lived in the royal palace
and had his headquarters (praetorium) there. The interchange in terminology of
basileion and praetorium, whether by Antony himself or by others in Alexandria,
does not warrant a conclusion that Antony in this respect professed royal status.
Octavian's propagandists made the most of the ambiguity.

5.3 "Ooipi Kol Aivoao...IeA.ftvn, xe Kal "Ioi: On these divine

appellations, cf. 50.25.3-4. Antony, in conformity wit.h family tradition of the
Antonii, at first identified himself with the hero (Hercules (Plut. Ant. 4.1-2;
60.3), as the Julii did with the Trojan Aeneas. But ^fter the* Battle of Philippi
perhaps already in Athens (winter 42/41) but certainly after fie arrived in Ephesus
in 41he was hailed as the New Dionysus, whose epiphany symbolized a
destiny of repeating the feats of Alexander the Great. See Antony's coins in the
East, in BMCRep. 2.502-503 {non vidi T.V. Buttrey, Studies in the Coinage of
Marc Antony [Diss. Princeton, 1953]).
In Egypt Cleopatra was already worshipped as Nea Aphrodite, and she
visited Antony at Ephesus and Tarsus in this guise; in her own realm she was
also Isis or Selene, for Osiris was assimilated in Egypt to the sun. The linking
of Isis and Artemis/Selene had been accomplished by the first centuiy.Bi. In
Asia Minor Artemis was also a fertility goddess, as at Ephesus. The blending of
Isis and Artemis or Aphrodite as "Great Mother" figures to constitute syncretized
96 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50

fertility goddesses was especially characteristic of Egypt, as was the cult of

Dionysus in the religious policy of the Ptolemies.
The Greeks in Egypt accepted the pair, Antony and Cleopatra, as No
Aiovuoo and Nct 'Apoitri (cf. P.Oxy. 1629.7 [44 B.C.], for "Cleopatra
Aphrodite"). On the cult of Antony and Cleopatra, see T. Hopfner, Fontes
Historiae Religionis Aegyptiacae (Bonn, 1922-1925), 3.374-375; H. Jeanmaire,
"La politique religieuse d'Antoine et de Cloptre," RA ser. 5, 19 (1924), 241-
261; T.V. Buttrey, "Thea Neotera: On Coins of Antony and Cleopatra,"
ANSMusN 6 (1954), 95-109; Cerfaux & Tondriau Culte 295-299; Rossi
Antonio 110-115; R.E. Witt, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World (Ithaca, 1971),
19-20, 38, 123-151; Ybxua Antony 190-196. -
On the propaganda of Octavian against Antony as Dionysus, see I. Becher,
"Augustus und Dionysosein Feindverhltnis," Zeitschrift fr gyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 103 (1976), 88-101. Because of Antony's d e \
fication in the East as the New Dionysus incarnate, it was possible for Octavian
to add fuel to charges and rumours of drunkenness against him (e.g., Cic. Phil.
2.3.6). Antony defended himself against this charge with a pamphlet intended
for readers in Rome, entitled De Sua Ebrietate. See K. Scott, "Octavian's
Propaganda and Antony's De Sua Ebrietate" CPh 24 (1929), 133-141; J.
Geiger, "An Overlooked Item of the War of Propaganda Between Octavian and
Antony," Historia 29 (1980), 112-114.

5.4 T^jv T8 e&xriv: On Cleopatra's habit of saying "as surely as one day I
shall dispense justice on the Capitoline," see also Prop. 3.11.45-46; Anth. Lat.
1.462.3; Ovid Met. 15.826-828; Eleg. in Maecen. 1.53-54; Floras 2.21.2; Eutr.
7.7.1.

6.3 Bovmviav: On Antony's veterans in Bononia (modern Bologna), cf.

Suet. Aug. 17.2: Bononiensibus...quod in Antoniorum Clientela antiquitus
erant, gratiam fecit coniurandi cum tola Italia, "He excused the Bononians from
the oath of all Italy because they had been of old in the Clientela of the family of
Antony." There were probably also numerous other clients of Antony in Italy
(cf. Carter Actium 195). On Antony's veterans in Italy, see E. Gabba, "Sulle
colonie triumvirali di Antonio in Italia," PP 8 (1953), 101-110 (= Esercito e
societ nella tarda repubblica romana [Firenze, 1973], 459-471).
The separation of territorial jurisdiction between the triumvirs was not
absolute. Antony remained patron of Bononia in Italy, and Octavian had an
enclave in Asia in Antony's provincia as patron of the city of Plarasa-
Aphrodisias. See E. Badian, "Notes on Some Documents From Aphrodisias
Concerning Octavian," GRBS 25 (1984), 158-159; cf. Dio 51.2.3n.
 1.1 -9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C. 97

The colony of veterans in Bononia received a new charter from Octavian at

this time: cf. CIL 11.720 (= ILS 5674): divus Aug(ustus) parens dedit. See P.
Ducati, Storia di Bologna (Bologna, 1928), 1.378-379, Keppie Colonisation
187-188. Brunt (Manpower 332) holds that Octavian turned out the pro-
Antonians of Bononia after Actium, in 30 B.C. On the twenty-eight colonies in
Italy founded or re-chartered by Augustus, see RG 28; Suet. Aug. 46.1.

6.4 Aivec: I.e., the two Africas and Mauretania. For pcoucrtovxe Cary
(Loeb) wrongly translates "who...had adopted the Latin tongue." Dio intends
"who were subject to Roman rule." On pwua'eiv, cf. 51.1.5n.
TO 'IXXupiKv: Augustus did not include Illyria as one of the regions
that swore allegiance to him in 32 (RG 25.2: iuraverunt in eadem verba
provinciae Galliae, Hispaniae, Africa, Sicilia, Sardinia)., Illyria was a separate
provincia under Julius Caesar (cf. Dio 38.8.5). Dio! mentions Illyria here
because he had a personal interest in the area, having been governor of the later
imperial provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia Superior. Holmes (Architect~2tf-
248 n5) suggests that Augustus left out Illyria because he "Bid not think it
prudent to ask for any pledge of support from the half-barbarous natives of a
country in which he had recently waged a war of conquest" (cf. 49.34.2-38.4).
But there may very well have been Illyrian auxiliary contingents among
Octavian's troops at Actium, as well as detachments from the Roman armies
that had campaigned in Illyria from 35 to 33.
BOYOVOV: On Bogud, former king of Mauretania, whose brother Bocchus
(died ea 33) had been a client king under Octavian, see 41.42.7; 43.36.1, 38.2;
48.45.1-3; 50.11.3n; RE 3.608-609 = Bugudes (Klebs).

6.5 oi 5 St' tpcsv: Dio is here compressing his source, skirting

details about the lieutenants of the client rulers. Plutarch (Ant. 61.2) is more
informative. i

6.6 vpicov,: At the conclave of Antony's client kings and dynasts at

Samos (Plut. Ant. 56.4-5; 61.1-2), a demonstration of loyalty was surely made,
and it is reasonable to assume that an oath of allegiance was exacted: Did news
of this ceremony and its implications determine Octavian to arrange for a
counter-demonstration in the West in the form of an oath of allegiance/to him?
Antony's exaction of such an oath from the vassal rulers in the East under his
imperium would be in accord with customary practice. On the other hand,
Octavian's eliciting of an oath of allegiance to himself in the West wa& indeed an
extraordinary step: it was an extra-constitutional popular demonstration to a
leader in a "national emergency," even if it was to some extent staged, and not a
98 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
formal oath to a regular magistrate. Augustus refers to the oath thus (RG
25.2): luravit in mea verba tola Italia sponte sua et me belli quo vici ad Actium
ducem depoposcit. luraverunt in eadem verba provinciae Galliae, Hispaniae,
Africa, Sicilia, Sardinia, "All Italy of its own accord swore allegiance to me, and
demanded me as leader of the war, in which I conquered at Actium. The
provinces of the Gauls, the Spains, Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia took the same
oath." Cf. RG 34.1: per consensum universorum potitus rerum omnium. On
the ceremony, cf. Cic. Man. 15.44, about Pompey: universus populus Roma-
nus...unum sibi ad commune omnium gentium bellum Cn. Pompeium
imperatorem depoposcit. On the oath to Octavian, cf. Verg. Aen. 8.678.
We need not take Augustus' sponte sua in RG 25.2 literally, nor suppose
that terror and blackmail were employed by Octavian's agents to extract the oath.
Only Italy, in a sort of national mandate, chose him as dux belli; the provinces
swore allegiance. By this oathan extra-constitutional referendum, as it were \ ^
all became virtually the Clientela of Octavian; after the defeat of Antony,
Octavian extended this relationship to the entire empire through oaths of
allegiance (see, e.g., ILS 8781). On the consensus of the upper classes, cf. Dio
50.11.4-5: before Octavian left Italy for the Actian campaign there was a
demonstration at Brundisium by senators and quits, at his own request. The
forces he raised in 32 constituted a quasi-military following for the specific
crisis. While the sources are silent about Octavian's authority at this time, he
acted as if imperium had been bestowed on him in this connection, for he pos-
sessed authority to recruit troops and levy taxes.
For the oath of allegiance, see: M.O.B. Caspari, "On the luratio Italiae of
32 B.C.," CQ 5 (1911), 230-235; Holmes Architect 247-251 ("The Oath of
Allegiance to Octavian"); Syme Revolution 284-291; F. de Visscher, "Les
pouvoirs d'Octavien en l'an 32 av. J.C.," BIBR 19 (1938), 108, 113; Fadinger
Begrndung 272-332 ("Der consensus"); jie Martino Storia 4.107-122 ("Consen-
sus omnium e poteri di Ottaviano"); Johnson Propaganda 85-89; Brunt & Moore
Res Gestae 67-68; P. Herrmann, Der rmische Kaisereid (Hypomnemata 20:
Gttingen, 1968), 78-89, 118-120 (a fundamental treatment of the oath of 32, as
precedent to later oaths of loyalty to Augustus and, in general, to imperial oaths
of allegiance); J. Linderski, "Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae; The Genera
Militiae and the Status of Octavian," JRS 74 (1984), 77-80.

7.1-2 TTJv &pxrrv.i.&c^0eiv: Arche and archein are the terms Dio
uses for the office of the triumvirs (47.1.1; 48.22.2; 49.41.6; 50.1.3; see Vrind
De Vocabulis 53-54). On Antony's offer to restore the Republic, cf. 49.41.6n;
Augustus made the same offer in January 27 B.C. (53.2.7n). This was still a
political catchword in A.D. 42 when Furius Camijlus Scribonianus, governor of
 1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C. 99
Dalmatia, rebelled and proposed restoration of the Republic, TT)V a p g a i a v
tauGepiav jcooeiv {miaxvouuvo'o, "promising to restore the ancient
liberty" (60.15.3).

7.2 t a . . . a < otov...t& t v voviitov: Regarding the strength of

Antony's and Octavian's forces in the war, Dio does not give specific figures.
Unfortunately the numbers in other sources are at variance with one another:
Plut. Ant. 56; 61.1-2; cf. 68.1; Floras 2.21.5; Oros. 6.19.6-9. Of the thirty
legions Antony had under his command, nineteen were with him in Greece; the
other eleven were deployed in Cyrene, Egypt, and Syria (cf. Holmes Architect
146-147). In addition, Antony's client rulers brought numerous contingents of
auxiliaries; some, like Herod, Polemo of Pontus, and Artavasdes of Media, were
excused from personal presence at Actium, having been assigned to defence
duties in their areas. The land forces of Antony in Greece (totalled about 100,000
men (ea 60,000-75,000 legionaries, 12,000 cavalry! and 10,000-25,000
auxiliaries). On Octavian's side, though he had under his command after the war
in Sicily a total of forty-five legions, only sixteenwith ea 0,000 men
together with 12,000 cavalry and an unspecified number of allied jauxiliaries were
with him in the campaign against Antony and Cleopatra. Thus the two sides
were fairly well matched in manpower, though the quality of troops may have
been unequal, since Antony was compelled to rely on non-Italians to a large
extent. (For the recruitment of easterners into the legions in 35-32, see O.
Cuntz, "Legionare des Antonius und Augustus aus dem Orient," JAI 25
[1929], 70-81.)
The size of the naval forces mobilized on both sides for the campaign at
Actium is difficult to determine because of conflicting sources. Dio does not
state numerical strengths, but appears to conceive of Octavian's fleet as larger in
number and Antony's as superior in size of vessels (50.18.4-5, 19.4, 29.1-3),
and it is indeed the communis opinio today that GJctaviarf commanded more
ships. Florus (2.21.5), relying probably on Livy4 recordjs that Octavian had
more than 400 ships, Antony fewer than 200; Orosius (6.19.8-9) that Octavian
had 260, Antony 170. Plutarch's figures {Ant. 61.1-2) are at variance: Octavian
had 250 warships, Antony more than 500. Plutarch and Orosius would appear
not to include the fleet brought by Agrippa. On the ships actually committed to
the Battle of Actium on both sides, see Dio 50.31.3-5, where, however, no
figures are given.
On the knotty problem of the figures involved, see Kromayer Hermes 33
(1898), 23-30, 54-67; Idem, Antike Schlachtfelder 670; Tarn in CAH 10.100-
106; Johnson Propaganda 24-39; Holmes Architect 146-147, 259; Richardson
JRS 27 (1937), 154-157; Carter Actium 188, 202.
100 COMMENT^Y ON BOOK 50

7.3 xpvoiov: On the expenditures before the battle by Octavian and Antony,
there is here a trace of Dio's predilection for antitheses: Octavian gave donatives
to soldiers (XPTJUCCTO: to otpaTWxai), Antony bribes of gold, especially in
Italy and Rome.

8.1 xo3LX...8p\)3Uio: "many rumours were spread." On the propaganda

campaign of the time, see Appendix 7, "The Propaganda War of 32-31 B.C."

8.1-6 xap TV 9ev: The portents reported by Dio and Plutarch (Ant.
60.2-3) are all different from each other, with the exception of one (regarding a
statue of Antony, but even in this instance Plutarch states that sweat ran down
it, while Dio reports blood). Plutarch records mostly portents that presaged an
unfavourable outcome for Antony, and mostly those from abroadPatraV
Athens, Cleopatra's flagship; Dio, on his part, records portents from Rome,
Italy, and Sicily. For Dio's other lists of prodigies, see Smilda's Index
Historicus (Boissevain, vol. 4), 532-542 (= Prodigia); Millar Study 77, 179. On
Dio's guarded attitude toward portents, see especially frg. 57.22.

8 3 TOW 6eTpov: This is doubtless the Theatre of Pompey. So also at

50.10.2.

9.2 v -rfl 'IxaXict xov x6Xep.ov: Of the extant sources, only Dio states
that there was discussion in Antony's camp on a strategy of invading Italy, and
the reasons for abandoning the scheme. The matter is suspicious. It is not
likely that Antony's plan was to attack Italy: there was the risk of a national
reaction against him as a foreign invader accompanied by Cleopatra, and
Cleopatra would be threatened in her influence over Antony if he invaded Italy.
For Antony it was more politic to stand at the edge of his realm, the Adriatic,
and allow Octavian to initiate action. Equally important, Antony was
constrained to keep viable his supply lines to his bases in Egypt and Asia
Minor. It was surely an aspect of Octavian's policy to keep warfare out of Italy
itself (cf. M. Volponi, Lo sfondo italico della lotta triumvirale [Genova, 1975],
154).
KpKvpav: On Corcyra, see 49.17.2n. The time was late autumn of 32
(50.9.3: K uetoicdbpov).
Kepavvia 8pT|: On the location of the Ceraunian mountains, see
41.44.3.
 1.1-9.6: THE YEAR OF DECISION, 32 B.C. r- 101

93 nxpai: On this strategic port (modern Patras), the metropolis of

Achaea in the northwestern Peloponnesus, see OCD 789; RE 18.4.2209 = Patrai
(Meyer).

9.4 Mooio: L. Messius is otherwise unknown.

9.5-6 xo-teiXev: Carter (Actium 200) labels this a "comic-opera

challenge."

THE YEAR OF ACTIUM, 31 B.C.

Dio's striking deviation from the annalistic pattern by ending Book SO on 2

September 31 B.C. underscores the epochal importance he attached to Actium,
which effectively ended the straggle for sole power between' Octavian and
Antony; cf. Manuwald Dio 79. For other such departures from the annalistic
mode, see Books 46 and 47.

10.1-6: EVENTS IN ROME

10.1 tixotxoi: On the consuls designated as early as 39, see Dio 48.35.1.
On the abrogation of Antony's consulship for 31, see 50.4.3n (yet Antony's
coins minted at Patrae mention his consulship for that year: BMCRep. 2.531).
For Valerius Messalla Corvinus, see 49.16.In; 51.7.7n; on his escape from
proscription, 47.11.4.

10.2 xov oxavov: The wreath was on a statue of Julius Caesar.

10.4-6 oi eXedepoi: On the 12.5% capital levy on the property of

freedmen in Italy, and the 25% tax on annual income of land-holding free men,
cf. 51.3.3n. Plutarch (Ant. 58.1-2), giving the saife ratesi dates the imposing
of war taxes to the year before; Dio emphasizes the riots, murders, and arson
attending the collection of these taxes. On the war taxes levied by Octavian at
this time, see 50.2.2n, 16.3; R.T. Ridley, "The Economics of Civil War,"
Helikon 20-21 (1980-1981), 39-40; Carter Actium 196.

10.6 t a xvv xpaxo: "the official portents." Dio's explanation of

how some ordinary events, because of the wide range of occurrence, were recorded
as portents is an interesting aspect of the treatment of portents in Roman
religion.
102 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50

11.1-15.4: THE BLOCKADING OF ANTONY (cf. Map 4)

11.1 ex too Bpevteouru: Brundisium (modern Brindisi) in Puglia, at the

end of the via Appia and the normal port of embarkation for Epirus and Greece,
was Octavian's headquarters and staging port. Cf. Classical Sites 170.
KepKpot: Corcyra was required as an advance base of operations for
Octavian. Dio reports here that Octavian attempted to seize Corcyra in the
winter of 32/31 but withdrew because of a storm, and that he did seize the island
in the spring of 31 (50.12.2: amoq TO vouai); but Orosius (6.19.7) says that
Agrippa took the island. - We may reconcile the conflicting data by proposing
that Agrippa's ships drove out Antony's garrison and that then Octavian sent in
occupying forces.
V
11.3 McGmvtiv: Methone, at the southwestern tip of the Ploponnse (in
Messenia), was an important station for guarding the supply lines of Antony
coming from Egypt and Asia Minor. On Agrippa's interception of Antony's
merchantmen and supply ships, see Oros. 6.19.6. The time is spring (^po) of
31 B.C. On Bogud, see 50.6.4n; on his'execution, Str. 8.359; Porphyr. De
Abst..25.

11.4 oxpaTeuaTo...A.anjup Tjaim.uivo'o: Dio here emphasizes

the battle-readiness of Octavian's land and sea forces, buoyed by victories in the
Sicilian and Illyrian-Dalmatian campaigns of 36-33 (on which see 49.1.1-11.1,
34.2-38.4).

11.5 op-oyvcouovouv: On the display of consensus, see 50.4.2n, 6.2-6n.

Cf. RG 25.3: qui sub [signis meis^tum] militaverint fuerunt senatores plures
quam DCC. Cf. E. Groag, "Zur senatorischen Gefolgschaft des Caesars im
actischen Krieg," Laureae Aquincenses 2 (1941), 30-39.

12.1 T6V xe ne6v: Octavian's legionaries, cavalry, and auxiliaries were

disembarked at the foot of the Ceraunian hills, perhaps at Panormus (see Carter
Actium 205), and then marched south along the coast to Actium.

12.2-8 x "AKTIOV: Dio's topographical description of Actium and the

vicinity is done with such precision that one may speculate whether his
knowledge came from personal observation of the terrain rather than from books.
Note especially here 12.4, "the high ground from which there is a panoramic
view;" 12.5-6, on his scepticism about the reported overland transport of
 11.1-15.4: THE BLOCKADING OF ANTONY (31 B.C.) 103
triremes from the outer sea into the Ambracian Gulf because of the narrow and
uneven terrain (cf. Millar Study 36 n6).

12.2 TV Xiuiva tov YXOKUV: Limen Glykys, on the coast of Epirus,

is modem Fanfari. Theriveris the Acheron.

123 NIKOKOI: For the site of Nicopolis, see 51.1.3n.

12.4 noi: I.e., the islands Paxos and Antipaxos.

Kouxxpov: Comarus (modem Mytike) was die outer port of the isthmus.

12.7 to 8' "AKXIOV: For the site of Actium, see Kleine Pauly 1.1529-
1530 = Actium (Kirsten).

13.1-4 'AvtWio: Dio's vagueness about Antony's mobilization at

Actium appears to reflect his reliance on sources that viewed the events from
Octavian's side.

13.5 AevxdSct: The capture of the island of Leucas, south of Actium,

completed the blockade of Antony in the Ambracian Gulf. See J. Kromayer,
"Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats, VII: Der Feldzug
von Actium und der sogenannte Vernadi der Cleopatra," Hermes 34 (1899), 19-
20, 25-26; Idem, Schlachten-Atls zur antiken Kriegsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1923-
1926), 126; Reinhold Agrippa 54. Cf. Livy Per. 132; Florus 2.21.4; Vell. Pat.
2.84.1: Denique in ore atque oculis Antonianae classisper M. Agrippam Leucas
expugnata, Patrae captae, Corinthus occupata. Dio (so, too, Velleius) places the
capture of Corinth by Agrippa before the Battle of Actium; Reinhold (Agrippa
58), relying on Plut. Ant. 67.7, puts it after Actium, for Corinth was still in
Antony's hands after the battle. Perhaps two separate seizures of Corinth were
involved: captured by Agrippa, retaken by Antony's (forces, and finally
reoccupied by Agrippa. On these events and Patre, see S50.9.3n; on Q. Nasi-
dius, 49.18.6n.
On M. Titius, see 48.30.5-6; 49.18.2r5; 50.3.1-3; on Statilius Taurus
49.14.6n, 38.4, 42.3; 51.20.5, 23.1; 53.23.1; 54.19.4.
QiJldteXfOV: On Deiotarus Philadelphus of Paphlagonia, see 51.2.1-
3n. Dio does not mention the defection of Rhoemetalces of Thrace to Octavian
at this time (see Plut. Apophth. Caes. Aug. 2 = H. Malcovati, ed., Imperatoris
Caesaris Augusti Operum Fragmenta, 4m ed. [Torino, 1962], 158).

13.6 Aoutxio: On Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, see 49.41.4; 50.2.2.

104 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50

13.7 'IduXixov: On lamblichus I, Arab sheikh of Emesa, see RE 9.639-

640 = lamblichus 1 (Stein); R.D. Sullivan, "The Dynasty of Emesa," ANRW
2.8.205-211. Q. Postumius is otherwise unknown.

13.8 AXXio: On the defection of Q. Dellius, see 50.23.1. We do not

know whether he deserted Antony at the last moment or earlier. See Holmes
Architect 252 ("When Did Dllius Desert Antony?"); Carter Actium 214. On
Amyntas of Galatia, see 47.28.2n; 49.32.3n; 50.13.8; 51.2.1-3n, 7.4; 53.26.3.

14.1-2 va\>|iaxia: On the novus homo L.-Tarius Rufus, see RE 4A.2320-

2323 = Tarius 3 (Groag). He was consul suffectus in 16 B.C. Dio's statement
herethat Sosius lost his life at this time in a naval skirmish before the Battle
of Actiumis either an error or confusion with a different Sosius (see Sturz al>4
Boissevain ad loa). Sosius was later fully integrated into the Augustan regime
(cf. Vell. Pat. 2.86.2); he was, e.g., XVvir sacris faciundis and played a leading
role in the Ludi Saeculares.
Syme (Revolution 296) states that at this time Antony had only three
consulars left with him: Sosius, Canidius Crassus, and Gellius Poplicola.

14.2 too TapKOvSiutou: On Tarcondimotus, see 41.63.1; 51.2.1-3n,

17.2-7n.

14.3-15.4 ANTONY'S STRATEGY

Antony was ready for battle in April. However, months passed in an apparent
stalemate, about which we know nothing. Dio's conception of Antony's
strategy in late August is that he planned to break out of the blockade and
reorganize in Egypt. Clearly this is the soundest interpretation of Antony's
moves at Actium, as most scholars now agree. An alternative view is that of
Ferrabino and Holmes, that the flight was not prearranged: that Antony intended
to fight but was betrayed by Cleopatra, and then followed her in panicky flight,
ihe facts are: [1] that very early Antony was effectively blockaded and besieged
by sea by Octavian's fleets; [2] that there had been serious illness among his
troops (malaria? dysentery?); [3] that his lines of communication with his
supply bases had been cut by Agrippa; and [4] that there were numerous
desertions. Accordingly, it was decided in a high council of war late in August
to attempt to break out of the blockade at an acceptable cost, so as to reorganize
for a stand in Egypt. (Syme, however [Revolution 296], holds that recon-
struction of Antony's intent is now beyond recall.)
 11.1-15.4: THE BLOCKADING OF ANTONY (31 B.C.) 105
For the problem of Antony's strategy, see: J. Kromayer, "Kleine
Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats, VII: Der Feldzug von
Actium und der sogennante Verrath der Cleopatra," Hermes 34 (1899), 1-54;
Idem, Schlachtfelder 4.662-671; Idem, "Actium: ein Epilog," Hermes 68 (1933),
361-383; A. Ferrabino, "La battaglia d'Azio," RFIC 52 (1924), 433-472;
Holmes Architect 253-258 ("The Object of Antony and Cleopatra in the Battle of
Actium"); Richardson JRS 27 (1937), 162-164; Leroux RecPL 2 (1968), 29-37;
Johnson Propaganda 48-56; van Stekelenburg Redevoeringen 103-104; Carter
Actium 200-214; Www Antony 218-219.
On the war council reported by both Dio and Plutarch (Ant. 63.3-5), An-
tony is assigned an indecisive role. On the proposition of "flight or fight," Dio
says that Cleopatra's viewthat the theatre of war be removed to Egypt
prevailed. Plutarch (Ant. 63.3-4) reports the vigorous view of Canidius Crassus
that the ships be abandoned at Actium and that the land forces retreat to
Macedonia for a land engagement

15.2 TO Beertpov: Dio doubtless means the Theatre of Dionysus at the foot
of the Acropolis.

15.4 Kaxexpiioav: On die burning of some of the ships before the Battle
of Actium, as reported by Dio and Plutarch, Tam (JRS 21 [1931], 178-179)
condemns as "childish" the notion that Antonyjvould have burned "a large part
of his fleet" before the battle simply because he lacked the manpower to provide
sufficient rowers. But Dio does not say he bumed \ large part," but only "the
rest" after selecting the best ships for his plan. ^

16.1-23.3: ANTONY'S SPEECH

I ;
The two specimens of the exhortatio genre (a speech of encouragement to the
troops before battle) that Dio has put into the mouths of Antony and Octavian
are unusual for two reasons: they are very long, in keeping with the decisive
importance of the battle fought for sole supremacy; and they incorporate, besides
conventional elements of the exhortatio, not so much the political and military
issues or the actual circumstances of the moment, as many details culled from
the propaganda literature of the period from 40 to 30 B.C. The specific points
made by each leader presuppose access by Dio, directly or mediated, to the
polemical literature on bom sides and to Augustus' autobiography. It is obvious
that, in general, Dio is here following a version favourable to Octavian.
106 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
The raw material for Antony's speech to his troops, as imagined by Dio,
may have come in part from Asinius Pollio's history and similar sources. See
especially von Stekelenburg Redevoeringen 99-106. Dio attributes to Antony
the following major themes: our army and fleet are larger and better equipped; we
have great financial resources; I am a mature general with comprehensive
experience in politics as well; Octavian is ruthless, insolent, and acts illegally;
the declaration of war is really against me and my followersnot Cleopatra; we
must not allow ourselves to be divided; we are fighting for liberty and against
enslavement.

16.1-2 iXf|8o oXv: Dio's treatment of the Battle of Actium as the

victory of the smaller over the larger, and his emphasis on Octavian 's Roman
legions fighting against levies from the eastern provinces and from client states
(itap xv \)nm.K6(v Kal Jiap x8>v OT)HUX<OV), betrays the influence of
Augustan propaganda and the "myth of Actium." See below, pp. 115-116.

16.2 vcnmicv: On the number of ships on both sides in the Battle of

Actium, see on 50.31.1-35.6; on the sizes of the ships, cf. 51.1.2n; on
Antony's claim to naval superiority, 50.19.4. Dio's inclusion of xotpxaq and
iroroToTCt is not mere rhetoric: contingents of foot- and mounted archers (cf.
50.18.6) were probably contributed by some eastern client rulers like Artavasdes
of Media Atropatene (cf. Plut. Ant. 61.2).

16.3 x XPTIHOta: There is some truth in Dio's statement that Antony's

financial resources were greater at this time than Octavian 's. It is likely that,
besides the royal treasury and the personal treasure of Cleopatra, there were
contributions from other client rulers, together with the tribute and other taxes
from the provinces under Antony's suzerainty, sums that were not likely to have
been forwarded to Rome by Antony in these years. Further, Italy had been
exempt from tributum for so long (since 167 B.C.) that the imposition of
financial levies by Octavian to build up a war chest caused violent repercussions
there (50.10.4-6n; 51.3.3n).

17.1 OTpaxtiYov fivo piaxov: Antony's qualifications as a great

leader are, in part, based on his age (here called "prime of life"). Actually, he
was about fifty-two years old. (In Roman practice, a man over forty-five wai
officially called senex.) Octavian was then not yet thirty-two.

17.4 ujtcipiav: Octavian entered the political arena in his nineteenth

year, so that in 31 he had a little over a decade of experience.
 16.1-23.3: ANTONTS SPEECH (31 B.C.) 107

17.5 On the conjunction offipxQilvand fipa, see 52.4.3-5n. Dio's penchant

for antitheses should be noted here.

18.1 v eiSoi: An echo of Thuc. 2.36.4.

18.3 ppcsaxxaxo T $ omuaxi: Octavian indeed had a chronic sickly

nature: his illnesses and disabilities can be documented from age seventeen on
throughout his long life. See, e.g., Pliny HN 7.148-149; Suet. Aug. 59, 72.1-
2, especially 81-82; A. Esser, Csar und die julisch-claudischen Kaiser im
biologisch-rtzlichen Blickfeld (Leiden, 1958), 45-66; M. Reinhold, "Augustus'
Conception of Himself," Thought Quarterly 55 (1980), 38-39.

18.4 KOTO TTJV iftv: Actually not true. Antony's forte was land warfare,
while Octavian 's fleet had gained much experience and many victoriesin Sicily
and along the Illyrian coast from 36 to 33.

18.5 t v ^u.eiepa>v o x a v : On the size of Antony's ships, cf.

51.1.2n.

18.6 Jtpyoov: Both Antony's and Octavian's vessels were equipped with
towers (as, for example, at Mylae and Naulochus in Sicily: cf. 49.1.2n).

19.1 TiEpl ZuceXiav 'Aypicica: On the victories of Agrippa at Mylae

and Naulochus, see on 49.2.1-8.4, and on 49.8.5-11.1. On the use of slaves in
the fleet of Sextus Pompey, see 49.12.4-5n.

19.2 TT|V |TTOv: On the military setbacks of Octavian in the Sicilian War,
see 49.5.1-5; cf. Suet. Aug. 70.2.

193 uvaui: On the number of Sextus Pompy's legions, see 49.1.In;

on the number of legions under Octavian in 36 B.C., 49.13.1-14.2n; on the
ships and troops at the Battle of Actium, see on 50.31.1-35.6.

19.4 T $ xe$: Antony had previously deployed his cavalry to invest

Octavian's camp (50.13.4).

19.5 Xiu$: Actually it was Antony's forces that were experiencing food
shortages (50.14.4).
108 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50

20.2 Tofc jiex too tov: This is, of course, hyperbole (cf. App. EC
5.127 [527]), though not inconsistent with what Dio himself says at 49.12.4n.
xv \itxh TOV Aextou: There is no evidence that Lepidus'
followers were, in fact, so treated.

20.3 AmSov: On the deposing of Lepidus from the Triumvirate and his
house arrest (at Circeii), see 49.11.2-12.4nn.; cf. Plut. Ant. 55.1. On the
financial levies in Italy, see 50.10.4-5.

20.5 jtvxmv... j t e o t p i i j i a i . . . i8iTTi: On the abrogation of

Antony's powers the preceding year, and his relegation to the status of privatus
after the summer of 32, see 50.4.3n.

20.6 ov% fcx to ST|UOW otS' bxb xr\ ouXijc: There must, of
course, have been a decree of the Senate in Rome. On the flight of the consuls
Sosius and Domitius, see 50.2.6.

20.7 5ia9T|Ka: On Antony's will, see 50.3.3-5n.

21.1-2 JCoJteuo'U: On the declaration of war, it is noteworthy that Dio

does not have Antony mention Cleopatra at all: she was an embarrassment to
many Romans on Antony's staff (cf. Plut. Ant. 56.2-3; 58.2; 59.2-4). Antony
was not himself declared a hostis (50.4.3n).

22.3-4 XevOepiav: The slogan of libertas threatened by servitus,

dominatio, or regnum was a dominant political motif in the last decades of the
Republic. The most prized aspect of the traditional personal libertas of all
Roman citizenssecurity in life and propertywas buried in the 40s and 30s,
while libertas for the senatorial order became a code word for its claim to freedom
f political competition and access to power and wealth. With
Octavian/Augustus, the two were reunited under one super-patron, the princeps,
guarantor and protector of freedom. Cf. Cic. Phil. 4.2. Octavian presented
himself as vindex libertatis thus: rem publicam a dominatione factionis
oppressam in libertatem vindicavi (RG 1.1). In 28 he issued from the eastern
mints numerous silver coins that bear on the obverse his portrait and the legend
Imp. Caesar diviflilius) co(n)s(ul) VI libertatis p(opuli) R(omani) vindex (EJ2
58, 18). On the libertas/servitus theme, see RE 13.101-103 = Libertas (Koch);
C. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome During the Late Republic
and Early Principate (Cambridge, 1950); A. Dermience, "La notion de "Libertas"
dans les oeuvres de Cicron," LEC 25^1957), 157-167; J. Bleicken, "Der Begriff
 16.1-23.3: ANTONY'S SPEECH (31 B.C.) 109
der Freiheit in der letzten Phase der rmischen Republik," HZ 195 (1962), 1-20;
R. Scheer, "Vindex libertatis," Gymnasium 78 (1971), 182-188.

22.4 SpKOi: This appears to refer to an actual oath that Antony would lay
down his powers six months after victory. Cf. 49.41.6n; 50.7.1-2n.

23,1-3 M.T| t i vewtepmooi: There were indeed numerous defections from

Antony: cf. 50.3.1n. On Dellius, see on 49.19.1-22.3 (his history); 49.39.2n;
50.13.8n.
OKtxn.: On the range and size of Antony's shipsfrom trireme to
dekeressee 51.1.2n.
jtvpyou: See 50.18.6n.

24.1-30.4: OCTAVIAN'S SPEECH

In Octavian's exhortatio Dio provides him with emphases on his just and
patriotic cause: Rome's superiority documented in its history of imperial
successes, and in its reverence toward the gods. The war is against an Egyptian
woman and the detestable Alexandrians and Egyptians: Roman possessions have
been alienated; Romans have been degraded by CleopatraRoman soldiers in her
bodyguard, senators and quits fawning over her; Antony has been enslaved and
bewitched by her. Antony's character has deteriorated: Octavia has been insulted
by him; he is not a great general; etc. In general, see Scott MAAR 11 (1933),
44-45; van Stekelenburg Redevoeringen 99-106.

24.3 fuvaiicoc AiYUXtia: Cf. 49.24.5: X.6pra vwvaiK, "accursed

woman." Octavian's words reveal Dio's own prejudices, in that the "rulers of
the greatest and best part of the world" should have succumbed to a foreigner, to
an Egyptian at that, and to a woman.

24.3-5 IHppov...Oi>.tieieov: The victories of the Romans over foreign

powers are listed selectively from Pyrrhus' time, in geneizlly chronological
order. Pyrrhus, Philip V of Macedon, Perseus, and Antiochus the Great are
singled out because their defeats involved Roman victories "in the East" and over
successors of Alexander the Great. "In the West," on the other hand, Carthage,
Numantia, Germans (Cimbri, Ambrones), Gauls, as well as Pannonians are
mentioned selectively by way of illustrating Roman imperial successes of
various kinds: the destruction of Numantia and Carthage as demonstrations of
Rome's powers; Roman successes over less civilized tribal peoples; th recent
conquests by Caesar and Octavian in the north and northeast. The statement that
110 COMMENTARY N BOOK 50

the Roman conquests extended to the Danube River (the ancient Ister) before 31
B.C. is not true, though during the Illyrian-Dalmatian campaigns of 35-33
Octavian used the Danube for the transport of ships (49.37.5).

24.6 'AXeavSpe t e Kal AtyuxTioi: Next to Juvenal, no other

Greek or Roman author was so obsessed with prejudice and contempt for
Egyptians as Cassius Dio. He is tireiess in displaying his detestation of and
hostility toward them. Alexandria is portrayed by him as a hot-bed of anti-
Roman agitation; and Egyptian peasants are stereotyped as violent, fanatical, and
untrustworthy. But Dio never visited Egypt (senators were barred from that
province); he merely presents the conventional stereotypes of Egyptians diffused
among Roman elites for about 250 years. Other Roman authors were critical,
but not as venomous as Dio: to him Egyptians were treacherous, seditious,
violent, addicted to massacres, worshippers of animals, religious fanatics,
incestuous in their brother-sister marriages, arrogant, accustomed to the
repugnant embalming of the dead (instead of cremation, normal to Romans),
reckless and at the same time cowardly, docile yet rebellious. See 42.3.4, 7.2-3,
34.1-2, 35.2, 44.2; 51.17.1-2; 66.8.2-7; 71.4.1-2; 77.22.1-23.4. See Appendix
11, "Roman Attitudes Towards Egyptians;" Balsdon Romans 68-69; O. Seeck,
Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt 4 (Stuttgart, 1911), 330-332; M.
Reinhold, "Roman Attitudes Toward Egyptians," AncW 3 (1980), 97-103.

24.7 yovauci vt* vSpo: "a woman in place of a man." On Dio's (or
his sources') attitude toward women, cf. 50.27.4, 6; 50.28.3 ("no woman to
make herself equal to a man"), 33.2 (Cleopatra's fears as typical of a woman and
an Egyptian). Did the women of the Severan dynasty stir such prejudices in
Dio?
f|uetpv yaQ&v: On the grants of Roman territory to Cleopatra
and her children,'see 49.32.4-5n, 41.1-3n.

25.1 Sopvopovxa: These bodyguards, though, were not Romans but

Gauls. See 50.5.1.

25.2 xoXXamc auxoKpatopa: I.e., four times. See CAH 10.101;

BMCRep. 2.531.

25.3-4 On the identification of Antony with Dionysus and Osiris, and of

Cleopatra with Isis/Selene, cf. 50.5.3n.
 24.1-30.4: OCTAVIANS SPEECH (31 B.C.) 111

25.4 Wjoou Xac Kal tfiv fjxeipav xiva: I.e., Cyprus, Crete, and
territory in Asia and North Africa (Cyrene). See 49.41.l-3n.

26.1 SeX^v: I.e., Octavia, on whom see 49.33.3-4n; 50.3.2n.

26.2 t x v o v : I.e., Antonia Maior and Antonia Minor, born 39 and 36

respectively.

2 6 3 xoXeuiav: On Cleopatra as the enemy, see 50.4.4n, 21.1-2 on the

declaration of war.

26.5 u-eiiyeuiai: On the enslavement of Antony to Cleopatra, cf.

49.33.4n; 50.5.1; 51.9.5n.
i

27.1 y o u v a o i a p x o v : On Antony as gymnasiarch in Alexandria, cf.

50.5.1n. ;
; j
27.2 ax Kovmoi) KuuaXiOTmv: I.e., "cymbal players from
Canopus," suggestive of Near Eastern cultic instruments, used especially in the
worship of Isis. Canopus was a town in the delta, at the mouth of the Canopic
branch of the Nile.

27.3 Moomvav: The event took place in 43 at Mutina (modern Modena) in

Cisalpine Gaul, in the civil war between Antony and Octavian. The resistance
to Antony on 21 April 43 at the Battle of Mutina ended in his defeat. See
46.38.4-7.
pzvt\v t i v o : Dio's omission of Philippi is a clever touch, since
Octavian's leadership and behaviour at the battles ithere ift 42 were far from
memorable. i
I l
27.5 xXeuov: On the dbcle of the Parthian campaign of Antony, see on
49.23.1-33.4.

27.6 xarriKe: On Antony's agepast his primesee 50.17.1-6n.

27.7 'Apuviov: On the scelus Antonii, see 49.39.3n; 50.1.4.

27.8 ue8{otovtai: Dio has injected here, in documenting defections inoni.

Antony, a dramatic event in the autumn of 44 when Antony was on his way to
Cisalpine Gaul from Brundisium, for the purpose of expelling Decimus Brutus.
112 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50

At Brundisium three legions that had just arrived from Macedonia to join him
became disaffected and rebellious. Two of them, the Martian and the Fourth,
shortly deserted to Octavian (Dio 45.12.1-2, 13.1-4). Cf. Holmes Architect 28-
33, 201-202.

28.1 All the conquerors mentioned hereScipio Asiaticus, Sulla, Lucullus,

Pompey, Julius Caesarwon victories in the East. Dio thus focuses his
attention here on the defeats of Antony and his allies in the East (TTJV 'Aotav
TTiv Tfoeipov).

28.3 lofc bpiCovtac u : Cf. Verg. A'en. 6.853: parcere subiectis et

debellare superbos.

28.4 TcropioKOti... : For the recent victories of Octavian and his marshal^
over the Taurisci, Iapodes, Dalmatians, and Pannonians, see 49.34.2-38.4.
Dio's omission here of the Salassi mentioned in 49.34.2 shows that those
Salassi were Alpine tribes above Aosta.

28.5 icot TO i>u,etpoi: "All your possessions" is, of course, a

rhetorical exaggeration. See 50.24.7n.
Koxpiot: Cf. 74.6.2. The meaning is equivocal: either "buffoons" or
"turds." For the Latin copreae (= buffoons), see Suet. Tib. 61.6; Claud. 8.1.

29.1-2 TO fieyeOoc x&v cneaqrv: On the size of Antony's vessels, see

50.16.1-2n; 51.1.2n. ^Compare Thuc. 2.89.8, before the naval battle of 429
B.C. in the Corinthian Gulf, where the Athenian Phormio says 5iK7tXoi TE
OK eialv o5' vaopotpat, arcep vev auevvov itX.EOvav pya otvv.
See Kyhnitzsch De Contionibus 54.

30.1 AevxdSa: On*Leucas, see 50.13.5n.

30.2 v tfi r 9 Ajietvotj: "superior on land." See Kyhnitzsch De Con-

tionibus 54-58. Compare Thucydides' TO TtpooTov yGxsi oq>aX,vTe
(7.61.2) with Dio's v TO jtpToi y&ai a<paA.fj. Further, compare Dio
50.30.3 with the words of Gylippus before the final naval battle at Syracuse in
413 B.C. (Thuc. 7.67.4).

3 0 3 On the strategy of Antony and Octavian, see Dio 50.14.3-15.4n.

 31.1-35.6: THE BATTLE OF ACTIUM (31 B.C.) 113

31.1-35.6: THE BATTLE OF ACTIUM (cf. Map 4)

All the sources we have about the Battle of Actium are tendentious. Wim regard
to the number of ships committed to the battle, we have the contradictory
statements of Floras (2.21.5), Plutarch (Ant. 61.1-2; 68.1), and Orosius
(6.19.9). Dio gives no specific figures, but suggests that Antony's fleet was
"superior." Did he mean that Antony's ships were superior in the numbers of
men aboard each ship; or that his ships were larger, and that Octavian had more
ships that were, however, smaller in size (cf. 50.7.2n, 19.4)? Estimates are as
follows: J. Kromayer says that Antony himself had only 170 ships at Actium
("Die Entwicklung der rmischen Flotte vom Seeruberkriege des Pompeius bis
zur Schlacht von Actium," Philologus 56 [1897], 458-466; also Schlachtfelder
4.662-671); Tarn gives a total of 400 ships, including sUty of Cleopatra's, with
a total of 35,000-40,000 legionaries on board, of which! 170 ships (and 20,000
men) were under Antony's direct command on therightwing (CAW 10.103-104;
also JRS 21 [1931], 191); Holmes suggests that Antony had 230 vessels170
plus Cleopatra's sixtywith 20,000 legionaries and 2,0u0 archers and stingers,
while Octavian had more than 400 ships (Architect 152-153); Leroux gives
Antony 230 ships, fewer than Octavian (RecPL 2 [1968], 31-37); Carter
suggests 230 vessels for Antony, over 400 for Octavian (Actium 215); and
Johnson, that Octavian commanded more ships at Actium than Antony
(Propaganda 31-36,39).
Dio's narrative of the battle, the longest we have, is the most rhetorical: it
is rather vague and ill-informed, revealing little consideration of distances and of
the importance of prevailing winds, and showing a lack of expertise in naval
warfare. Dio presents a conventional sea-battle, as he did for Mylae and
Naulochus (cf. 49.2.1-4.1, 8.5-10.4).
For the tactics of the battle, see the plan ofi Holmes (Architect, facing
p!47). Antony occupied the right wing with li. Gfcllijus Poplicola, facing
Agrippa; M. Octavius with M. Insteius in die ceitre faded L. Arruntius; and
Sosius, on the left wing, faced Octavian and M. Lurias. In the centre rear of
Antony's naval force was Cleopatra's squadron of sixty ships. For Poplicola,
see 49.1.In; for M. Octavius (cf. Plut. Ant. 65.1), MRR 2.421-422; M.
Insteius (Plut. Ant. 65.1), PIR2 I 28; for L. Arruntius (cf. Vell. Pat. 2.85.2),
who was consul in 22 (54.1.1) and XVvir sacris faciundis in the Secular Games
of 17, see PIR2 A 1129; for M. Lurius (cf. Vell. Pat. 2.85.2), see 48.30.7 and
PIR2 L 425.

31.1-2 iottoi: The presence of sails aboard Antony's ships may be taken
as "evidence" consistent with the theory of prearranged intent to break out of the
114 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50

blockade, though all warships carried at least one sail into battle. Dio is wrong
here in suggesting that Antony's entire fleet was disordered by a gale on the day
of the battle. For the technical objections to his testimonyhe seems to have
confounded the wind pattern on the day of the battle with the four days' gale
preceding itcf. Holmes Architect 258-259.

31.3 i)*T|peTiK(i (xXota)r "dispatch boats." Cf. die Latin hypereticos

celetas(CIL 8.27790).

32.2 |UKpoxpa Kal Taxvipa: On the use of Libumians at

Actium, see also Plut. Ant. 67.2. Since the principal characteristic of th
Libumians was speed, was the mention of Liburnian "speed boats" a product of
Augustan propaganda that depicted Actium as a battle of "David against
Goliath," of small ships against big ones? But it is likely that Antony also had
swift Libumian cruisers (cf. Tarn JRS 21 [1931], 193). Octavian used them at
Actium, but the number was exaggerated (e.g., by Vegetius [4.33]). See S.
Panciera, "Libuma," Epigraphica 18 (1956), 130-156.

32.5 %eipaq oi8r|p: On the "iron claws," see 49.3.4n.

32.6 So...n rai xpe- Plutarch (Ant. 66.2) says three or four.

33.1-2 The Flight of Cleopatra. Dio here seems to contradict his earlier
statement that the prearranged plan was to break through and flee to Egypt: here,
he has Cleopatra make ^panicky dash for safety, out of weakness and fear. This
formulation smacks of Octavian 's propaganda. Since Plutarch's narrative is
more reliable than Dio's on tactical matters at the Battle of Actium, a sound
reconstruction would be as follows: Cleopatra's squadron contained merchant
ships as well as the war chest; she broke through a hole during the afternoon;
and when the left wing under Sosius began to crumble and surrender, Antony
dashed to safety. For an excellent treatment of the tactics of the battle, see
Carter Actium 215-227; also Kromayer Schlachtfelder 4.662-671; Tarn JRS 21
(1931), 187-196; RE Supp. 5.897-898 = Seekrieg, Rmer (Miltner).

34-35 lewp: Despite Dio's understanding of Antony's strategy of breaking

out of the blockade and regrouping in Egypt (see on\50.14.3-15.4), rhetoric runs
wild in his narrative of the end of the battle. With regard to his apocalyptic
vision of the firing of Antony's ships, Plutarch says nothing, while Dio over-
writes it into a spectacular dbcle. On the rhetoric and exaggeration in regard to
the use of fire, see Leroux RecPL 2 (1968), 52-55; Tarn JRS 21 (1931), 183-
 31.1-35.6: THE BATTLE OF ACTIUM (31 B.C.) 115
184 (a "silly story"); Carter Actium 225. The evidence for the use of fire in the
battle is, however, not negligible: Hor. Carm. 1.37.12-13; Verg. Aen. 8.694;
Serv, ad Aen. 6.682; Floras 2.21.6; cf. Johnson Propaganda 43-47.

34.1 vtixXcD...crT<DV uaxouivv: With Dio's judgement that

"the battle was evenly fought," cf. Thuc. 7.34.6:
vauuaxnoavTe...vTijiaA. Other sources emphasize that the naval battle
was protracted: Vell. Pat. 2.85.4 (in longum); Plut. Ant. 68.1 (itoW>v...xpvov);
Suet. Aug. 17.2 (in serum). Is this a legacy of the "myth of Actium"
disseminated by Augustan propaganda?

34.3 fivrXovv TO 8aX6Vrtiov: On the use of a bailing device to lift sea

water to put out the fire (the device called sentinacula'm Latin), see Casson
Ships 176 n42. Dio's statement that sea water exacerbates fire is nave, to say
the least.

ANTONY'S LOSSES
The fleet was not destroyed, but surrendered. Though Antony's losses are not
mentioned by Dio, Plutarch (Ant. 68.1) has preserved an "official" statement
from Augustus' autobiography (<b CCTO vypaye Kaoap) that there were
under 5000 dead and that 300 ships were captured (Orosius exaggerates: 12,000
killed, 6000 wounded [6.19.2]). Johnson (Propaganda 28-29, cf. 4043) argues
that Augustus included in the figure of 300 not only the warships captured at the
battle itself, but all vessels taken in the entire campaign against Antony and
Cleopatra, including warships, transports, and merchantmen. The ships captured
by Octavian at Actium are included in his summary in RG 3.3: naves cepi
sescen[tas praeter] eas, si quae minore[s quam trir]emes fuerunt. Kromeyer
set the statistics at 5000 men killed and 40-50 ships taken. Antony himself
extricated forty ships of the line, and Cleopatra escaed with her sixty. See Tarn
in CAH 10.105; Kromayer Philologus 56 (1897), 465; Leroux RecPL 2 (1968),
53-54; Tarn JRS 21 (1931), 193.

THE MYTH OF ACTIUM

The victory of Actium was mythologized into a "foundation myth" of the
Principate, as a national religious victory over alien and immoral forces.
Augustus was placed at the-centre-ofall events, though the victory was largely
Agrippa's. Cf. Vell. Pat. 2.84.1; Verg. Aen. 8.675-713; Hor. Epod. 1 and 9;
Prop. 3.11.39-46; 4.6.27-54; Dio's treatment here; Plutarch's version (AntrS-
68); and Floras 2.21.5-8. Syme (Revolution 297) calls it a "shabby affair," not
the great naval battle of the official version.
116 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 50
On the "myth of Actium," see Tarn JRS 21 (1931), 182, 196; Richardson
JRS 27 (1937), 153-164; F. Wurzel, "Der Ausgang der Schlacht von Aktium
und die 9. Epode des Horaz," Hermes 73 (1938), 361-379; Idem, Der Krieg gegen
Antonius und Kleopatra in der Darstellung der augusteischen Dichtung (Diss.
Heidelberg, 1941); Johnson Propaganda 70-103; Huzar Antony 220.
 BOOK 51

INTRODUCTION
The Importance of Books 51-52

Directly after his account of the Battle of Actium, Dio begins his treatment of a
momentous turning point in Roman history: the restoration of the monarchy,
some 725 years after the traditional beginning of the original kingship. While
Appian {Praef. 6) distinguishes a cyclical rhythm in {Roman1 historyfrom
monarchy to aristocracy to monarchyDio, in the extarjt books and fragments,
does not comment on a possible partem ofrecurrencein (constitutional forms, in
line with the conventional cyclical pattern of monarchyiarisiocfacy-democracy-
monarchy, with the Augustan Principate as a return to the first stage of the
cycle. If one may elevate it to a theoretical conception, he seems rather to view
the Principate at times as a sort of mixed'constitution (56.43.4: TT|V uovapxiav
xfi SrnxoKpario: uia), though such a theory was not so much official doctrine
of the Principate as it was rhetorical topos, similar to the image of the Empire
as "perfect democracy" (cf. 52.l4.l-15.in). In any case, Dio views Octavian's
sole rule from 31 B.C. on (won by ruthless struggle with Lepidus and Antony)
as the normative form of the ideal monarchy, the Principate, with the "good
king" at the summit of a pyramid of shared power and responsibilities in a
hierarchical system that assigned to a committed se*atorialforder a prime role in
the management of the empire. ! j
For the eventful transition from Republic to frincippte, Dio's account in
Books 51 -52for the years 31 -29 B.C.remains our principal source.

1.1-4.8: THE AFTERMATH OF ACTIUM (cf. Maps 2 and 4)

In these chapters Dio compressed what he deemed to be the most significant

events of the six months that elapsed between 2 September 31 and the fermai
opening of Octavian's campaign in Egypt against Antony and Cleopatra early in
30. It is noteworthy that Dio singles out Octavian's de factoa^sjurnjr^ofthe
Principate and his measures of normalization after the turmoil of the civil wars.
In particular, he highlights the demobilization of large numbers of troopsas
paradigm for the Severans, whose policy of expansion of the armed forces
118 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

jeopardized the traditional economic structure of the empire and the status and
power of his own social class.

1.1 o5 yp efoOa at soiev: Throughout most of his History

Dio avoids giving specific dates of events, in accordance with his characteristic
eschewing of details (cf. Millar Study 43-44). This was a conscious
methodological and stylistic principle of Dio, which afforded him the liberty to
narrate events out of chronological order, for rhetorical or dramatic effect, or for
convenience in grouping together related matters. Cf. Introduction on "Dio's
Methods and Style;" 0. Questa, "Tecnica biografica e tecnica annalistica nei 11.
LIII-LXIII di Cassio Dione," StudUrb 31 (1957), 37-53.

1.1-2 x6xe jcpmxov 6 Kotoap TO Kpdio icav u6vo l a x e v . . ^ :

"It was then that Octavian first obtained sole possession of all power;
accordingly, one might properly count the years of his reign from that day." To
Greeks, no less than to Romans of the third century, "sole possession of all
power" signified monorchia or basiieia. In Dio's own usage, the holding of pan
kratos defined the position of the Roman emperor: cf. 41.6.4; 47.1.1; 60.1.3;
79.3.3. He so describes Octavian's status in 47.7.3 (cf. also 42.35.5, Caesar's
status as dictator in 48), but also as monorchia in 50.1.1 (monarchian akribe)
and 56.43.4. Augustus' own formulation of his position after Antony's death is
potitus rerum omnium (RG 34.1; the Greek translation is VKpa-rri yevouevo
Jtav-teov).
Dio here associates the beginning of Octavian's "monarchy" with the
epochal victory at Actium (2 September 31), but he does so pragmatically,
reflecting the modalities of the third century, not as a statement of official
assumption of royal power by Octavian. (It should be noted that Dio uses the
infinitive mode with force to suggest resultant tendency, not the indicative as of
a definite fact.) At 56.30.5 there appears the more definitive uovapxT)0"ac,
referring to the period after Actium. Elsewhere he dates the inception of the
monarchy in 29 (52.1.In; 52.41.3-4n), and also in January of 27 (53.17.In:
aicpific fiovapxia).
While it is possible that Dio's use of various dates for the beginning of the
monarchy resulted from his turning to other sources (cf. Gabba RSI 67 [1955],
313-314 n4), the political turning point was indeed Actium, whatever
constitutional scaffolding was later erected "by Octavian. Very useful is
Manuwald's analysis (Dio 77-102) of the views of Hammond, Bleicken,
Andersen, Gabba, Millar, and van Stekelenburg regarding the different dates Dio
gives for the inception of the monarchy. Dio does not attempt to reconcile the
three dates he gives, and it is obvious that he did not have a clear conception of
 1.1-4.8: THE AFTERMATH OF ACTIUM (31-30 B.C.) 119
the chronological beginning of the Principate. He appears to have reacted
disparately to the emergence in 31-27 of aspects of die formalized position of die
emperor in his own age. In any case, in Dio's political philosophy monarchy
was the only viable system, and Augustus wisely aspired to monarchy from die
very outset of his career. See Andersen Dio 51-58; F.E. Adcock, \"The
Interpretation of Res Gestae Divi Augusti 34.1," CQ 45 (1951), 130-135; W.
Seyfarth, "PotituS rerum omnium. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung der RGDA, Kapitel
34," Philologus 101 (1957), 305-323; Miliar Study 93; D. Krmer,
"Grammatik contra Lexicon: rerum potiri" Gymnasium 85 (1978), 239-258.
For the Actian Era, see Appendix 9.

1.2 tp... 'AxXXeovi... &v8r|ice: In recording die naval trophy of

captured ships, dedicated in dockyards to Actian Apollo oi me Aamanian coast,
Dio appears to specify eight ships, from trireme as smallest up to SEKTIP^
(Latin deceris, or "ten-class," a super-warship). Strabo, however (7.325), states
that Octavian dedicated a squadron of ten ships, ranging from uoyicpoTo (i.e., a
light, single-banked vessel) up to eicfjpri. (H.L. Jones [Loeb] mistranslates
Strabo as "from vessel with single bank of oars to vessel with ten;" similarly,
Cary's version for Dio's eidjpn here, "of ten banks of oars," is erroneous.)
Dio (50.23.2) and Plutarch (Ant. 64.1) are in agreement that Antony's fleet at
Actium had complements ranging from trireme up to Seiorpri ("tens"). The
contradiction between Strabo on the one hand and Dio and Plutarch on the other
may be resolved by suggesting mat Octavian included in the trophy two light
naval craft, a monokrotos ("oner") and a dikrotos <"twoer"), not actually com-
mitted to the battle.
On the Hellenistic warships, particularly on the specifications and
management of these monster galleysthe great pplyremes that were ships of
the linesee W.W. Tarn, "The Greek Warship," Ms 25 ( J905), 137-154, 204-
224 ( = C. Torr, ed., Ancient Ships [Chicago, 196fl], 154J-189); Casson Ships
78 n5, 97-140 (esp. 99-100), for Antony's ships at Actium.

1.2 vccv jieitD 4o56|inoev: Cf. 50.12.8n; Suet. Aug. 18.2 (ampliato
vetere Apollinis templo); Verg. Aen. 8.704; Str. 7.325; Gardthausen Augustus
2.202-203 n2. The Acarnanian League's centuries-old shrine of Actian Apollo
(cf. Thuc. 1.29.3) was on the southern arm of the Ambracian Gulf, where
Antony's camp had been. On Octavian's new Temple of Apollo on the Palatine
in Rome, dedicated at mis time (28 B.C.), see 53.1.3n. On Octavian's devotion
to Apollo and the relationship between Apollo Aerius and Apollo Palatinus, s
H. Jucker, "Apollo Palatinus und Apollo Aerius auf augusteischen Mnzen,"
MH 39 (1982), 82-100. For other memorials of the Battle of Actium, see T.
120 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
Hlscher, "Denkmler der Schlacht von Actium: Propaganda und Resonanz,"
Klio 67 (1985), 81-102 (illustrated).
y&v xi t w o : Like the temple, the Actian Games were not a new
festival but a rededication of the old Acamanian festival to Actian Apollo, of
"sacred" type, held here every two years. Octavian did not designate it as hieran
(cf. Sturz ad loc.), but rather elevated it to a four-year event with Olympic status,
and it remained one of the greatest and most prestigious games for centuries to
come.
The date of the Actian Games, left unclear by Dio, is disputed: the
traditionally given date, 28 B.C., was contested by Tidman and Moretti, who
argued persuasively for 27, exactly four years after the Battle of Actium. See RE
1.1213-1214 = Aktia (Reisch); J. Gag, "Actiaca," MEFR 53 (1936), 92-97;
B.M. Tidman, "On the Foundation of the Actian Games," CQ 4A (1950), 123V
125; L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche, Istituto Italiano per la Storia
Antica 12 (Roma, 1953), 205-206; RE Suppl. 10.2 = Actionicae (Bonaria); R.
Rieks, "Sebasta und Aktia," Hermes 98 (1970), 96-116.
For the empire-wide Actian Games and on "sacred games" encouraged by
Augustus, see Appendix 10, "The Actian Games."
Sitsis (Latin obsonium) was the technical term for "pension" (Cary's
translation here"a 'sacred' festival, as they call those in connexion with which
there is a distribution of food"is faulty). The parenthetical sentenceotto
yp TOW [ywva] TTJV airriotv EXOVTOC voudoDm, "That is how they call
those [festivals] providing a pension"I consider to be not by Dio, but rather a
gloss. The character of "sacred games" and the accompanying rewards for
athletes were so well known to Dio's readers as to make such a definition
supererogatory.

1.3 6A.IV...NIK6XOA,IV: Cf. Suet. Aug. 18.2. Cassiodorus (Chron. Min.

2.134) dates the foundation of Nikopolis in 30 B.C.; Dio states imprecisely here
(1.4) that Octavian founded the city later (iSctepov) at the site of his camp,
which was on the northern arm of the Ambracian Gulf. Nikopolis was not a
Roman colony but a Greek city founded as a huge urban centre by synoecism of
many communities of the area (both Acamanian and Aetolian). For the coins of
Nikopolis honouring Augustus as Kxiatr] ("founder"), see RE 17.516 =
Nikopolis 2 (Schober) and BMC Thessaly 102. Octavian gave the same name to
the garrison town he founded four miles from Alexandria after the victory over
Antony and Cleopatra: see 51.18.1. In these foundations he was imitating other
founders of "Victory" cities: Alexander, for example, in Syria after the Battle of
Issus, and Pompey in Armenia Minor after the victory over Mithridates VI (see
36.50.3).
 1.1-4.8: THE AFTERMATH OF ACTIUM (31-30 B.C.) 121
For Nikopolis, see RE 17.511-518 = Nikopolis 2 (Schober); Kleine Pauly
4.124-125; U. Kahrstedt, "Die Territorien von Patrai und Nikopolis in der
Kaiserzeit," Historia 1 (1950), 554-561; Bowersock Augustus 93-94.
Xpiov v $ orfjvtiae: This was a victory monument, dedicated to
Neptune and Mars, at the site of his camp (Suet Aug. 18.2) on die hill above
Nikopolis. It consisted of a wall or altar on a raised platform decorated with
beaks of captured ships, and, associated with it, a stoa of the Corinthian order.
The remains of the monument are in situ. See Anth. Pal. 6.236 (Philip) on
bronze beaks of captured ships from the Battle of Actium as symbols of peace.
Dio's compressed statement here inaccurately implies that the naval spoils
were also dedicated to Apollo (cf. Sturz ad loa). The inscription, along the
frieze of the stoa and in very fragmentary form, has been restored by Oliver and
improved by Carter: [Nep]tuno [et Ma\rt[i Imp. Caesa]r div[i lulf. vict[oriam
ma]rit[imam consecutus belI\o quod pro [re pu]blic[a] ges[si]tin hoc region[e
c]astra [ex] quibu[s ad hostem in]seq[uendum egr]essu[s est spolijis [ornat]a
[dedicavit cons\ul [quinctum i]mperat[or se]ptimum pace parta terra [marique],
"To Neptune and Mars. Imperator Caesar, son of the deified Julius, having
attained maritime victory in the war which he waged for the Republic in this
region, adorned with spoils die camp from which he set out to attack the enemy
and dedicated this [monument] when he was consul for 7he fifth time and
imperator for the seventh time, peace having been won on land and sea"
(translation by Reinhoid). The dat of the inscription is 29 B.C. On pace parta
terra marique, cf. Livy 1.19.3: pace terra marique porta. For a similar inscription
from Rome of the same year, see ILS 81 (= EJ^ 17): Senatus populusque
Romanus imp. Caesari divi luli f. eos. quinct. eos. design, sext. imp. sept, re
publica conservata. See J.H. Oliver, "Octavian's Inscription at Nicopolis,"
AJPh 90 (1969), 178-182; J.M. Carter, "A New Fragment of Octavian's
Inscription at Nicopolis," ZPE 24 (1977), 227-23; R. Rieks, "Sebasta und
Aktia,"//erm98(1970), 102. j

1.4 Sicotv: But at 50.33.5 Dio states mat Octavian's ships were unable
to pursue Antony and Cleopatra because they were stripped for battle and had no
sails. There is, in fact, no contradiction, for there Dio had in mind combat ships
of the line. Plutarch (Ant. 67.1-3) records that Octavian sent a few swift
Libumian vessels in pursuit; they captured two of Antony's ships but abandoned
further chase.
Xoixv otpoTv: Plutarch (Ant. 68.2*3) records that "the rest of the
army" is said to have consisted of nineteen legions and 12,000 cavalry. "He
further supplies the information that it was Antony who ordered me retreat of tiie
122 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
infantry into Macedonia, under Canidius (67.5), and that the legions remained
intact for seven days (68.3). Dio says merely uex Tocrax.

1.5 t v wptv: I.e., "leading men." Cary (Loeb) mistranslates as

"important contingents."
oi oojijiox^oavTCC atcp: On the abandonment of Antony's cause
by the client kings and dynasts in the East, see 51.2.1-3n. With ppcouov,
"acknowledged Roman sovereignty," cf. 50.6.4n.

2.1 T...x6Xei: Dio's statement that after Actium Octavian imposed

fines on Greek cities and abolished the remnants of the power of popular
assemblies over their citizens (Bowersock Augustus 85-86) is unsubstantiated.
(It is true, however, that the relations between Athens and Octavian were noV
cordial, and it is possible that he interfered in the affairs of that city: see
Bowersock, op. cit. 105-106.) Although the cities of the East had supported
Antony before Actium, as they did Pompey before Pharsalus, those that had
received eleutheria from Caesar were confirmed by Octavian. In the province of
Asia, coinages commemorate liberatio granted by Augustus after Actium (e.g.,
of Mylasa, Aphrodisias-Plarasa, Ilium, the Lycian League, Tlos, Myra,
Telmessus, Cyaneae). In Greece there were liberatio issues also by Nikopolis in
Epirus, Amphipolis, Tanagra, and Sparta. See Grant Imperium 341-343.
Moreover, after Actium Octavian distributed wheat to destitute cities, granted a
general remission of debts, and restored property and stolen works of art.
Whatever may havTjeen the random pieces of evidence pertaining to Greek
cities under Augustus that Dio had in his notes, here he appears to be seeking to
legitimize, at the very very beginning of the Principate, a tendency towards
centralization (a policy that he advocated for his own times: see 52.30.3-9n on
his advocacy of curtailment of the privileges of cities).
On Augustus' policy toward the Greek cities of the empire, see R.
Bernhardt, Imperium und Eleutheria. Die rmische Politik genenber den freien
Stdten des griechischen Ostens (Hamburg, 1971), 197-198, 255-256.

2.1-3 S v v a o t a c . . . a o i X . e a c : Antony's system of major client kings,

petty princelings, and dynasts in the East (cf. 49.32.3n) extended in an arc from
Judaea to Thrace; many of these rulers were present at, or sent contingents to,
Actium (Plut. Ant. 56.4; 61.1-3). See Buchheim Orientpolitik 11-28, 49-83.
Dio's treatment of Octavian's post-Actian disposition of the Roman client states
in the East is both superficial and flawed by major distortions. He is content to
record the continuation or removal of specific rulers, but does not seem to
comprehend the arrangements of Antony and Augustus as a system. Antony's
 1.1-4.8: THE AFTERMATH OF ACTIUM (31-30 B.C.) 123
client-state system was, in fact, not dismantled by Octavian: by and large, the
main lines of the system were maintained and, what is more, in general the same
kings, princes, and dynasts were confirmed, despite their cooperation with
Antony. Some indeed went over to Octavian before the Battle of Actium; most
made their peace with him after.
Dio mentions here only six of the client rulers, three removed, three
retained. The following minor client rulers were sacrificed: Strato of Amisus on
the south shore of the Black Sea; Adiatorix of Heraclea Pontica (executed for
massacring Roman citizens); Nicias, tyrant of Cos; Mithradates II of
Commagene; Tarcondimotus Philopator at Hierapolis-Castabala in Cilicia;
Alexander of Emesa (brother of Iamblichus I) in Syria (executed); Lycomedes,
priest-dynast of Pontic Comana; and Queen Aba of the house of the Teucrids in
Rough Cilicia. Aside from some petty dynasts, such as jkteporik at Caranitis
and Cleon of Gordioucome in Mysia (who may be the same as the Medeius
mentioned here by Dio: see Jones Cities All), Octavian retained King Deiotanis
Philadetphus of Paphlagonia (cf. 50.13.5n), King Asander of the Bosporus, King
Polemo I of Pontus (cf. 49.25.4, 33.2, 44.3), King Amiyntas ^f Galatia and
Pamphylia (cf. 49.32.3; 50.13.8; 51.7.2-7; Plut. Ant. 61, 63; Vell. Pat.
2.84.2), King Archelaus of Cappadocia, King Rhoemetalces of Thrace, King
Cotys of the Odrysian Thracians, and King Malichus of Nabataean Arabia (cf.
49.22. l-2n, 32.5n; 51.7. In). A major omission by Dio is Herod of Judaea.
On Augustus' policy toward client kings, including the fostering of
marriage alliances among the ruling houses, see Suet. Aug. 48. For an excellent
treatment of the complexities of Octavian's arrangements in this regard, see
Bowersock Augustus 42-61, 152-158. Cf. Magie Roman Rule 1.442, 443;
2.1337-1338; Buchheim Orientpolitik 96-97; M.R* Cimma, Reges socii et
amici populi Romani (Milano, 1976), 291-2%.

2.3 XevSpov aciJKev: Why Dio singled out; only two cities, Cydonia
(modern Canea) and Lampe (or Lappa) in Crete, as meriting Octavian's grant of
the status of civitas libera is puzzling. On the liberatio coinage of Cydonia, see
Grant Imperium 343; and on Augustus' policy regarding cities in the East, see
above, 51.2.In.
Like many others of Octavian's arrangements, this was patently pragmatic
and selective. In the archive of inscriptions from Aphrodisias-Plarasa there is a
letter of Octavian to Samos (see J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome [London,
1982], 104 13), which E. Badian ("Notes on Some Documents From
Aphrodisias Concerning Octavian," GRBS 25 [1984], 165-170) would date in 31
B.C., after Actium. In the letter Octavian denies Samos' request for the status of
a "free city." "It is not right," he wrote the Samians, "to grant the greatest
124 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
privilege of all at random and without cause." However, in 20/19 B.C. he
restored free status to Samos (see 54.9.7n). W. Orth ("Der Triumvir Octavian:
Bemerkungen zu Inschriften aus Aphrodisias," EA 3 [1984], 61-82) concludes
that the Principate is prefigured in the inscriptions from Aphrodisias.

2.4-6 toXXow ^6vei)oe, KO( t i v v e i o a t o : Dio's "many

executions, few pardons" is unreliable: it reverses the known conduct of Octavian
after Actium and the death of Antony. Dio's statement here may be based on an
anti-Augustan source that emphasized his cruelty (cf. Manuwald Dio 72 n203).
In 51.16.1 Dio says he "punished some, pardoned others." We know of only six
partisans of Antony executed by Octavian, each highlighted as a special case: P.
Canidius Crassus, last of Antony's marshals (Vell. Pat. 2.87.3); Scribonius
Curio, the son of the adherent of Julius Caesar; D. Turullius (see 51.8.2-3JS.
Cassius of Parma (Vell. Pat. ibid., with Woodman's note), who had previously
joined Sextus Pompey, and was the last surviving assassin of Caesar; Q.
Ovinius, a senator who managed Cleopatra's textile industry (Oros. 6.19.20);
and an Aquilius Florus. A rhetorical topos appears to be lurking in the manner
of the deaths of the two Aquilii Flori mentioned by Dio, similar to the father-
son drama described by Suetonius (Aug. 13.2) as having occurred in 42 after the
Battle of Philippi. Velleius' summary (2.86.2) is preferable to Dio's in this
matter: victoria vero fuit clementissima nee quisquam interemptus est <nisi>
paucissimi ("His victory was indeed very merciful, and no one was executed
except for a very few;",I follow Woodman's text); cf. 2.87.2: nemo ex iis qui
contra eum arma tuleruni ab eo iussuve eius interemptus est ("No one of those
who fought against him was executed by him or at his order"); Sen. Clem.
1.9.1. See Fadinger Begrndung 309; Sattler Augustus 21; contra, Syme Papers
3.1095-1096 ("Mendacity in Velleius").
There were no proscriptions, and dementia was held forth as one of the
cardinal virtues of Augustus and the new order (cf. RG 34.2 on the virtues of
Augustus; and RG 3.1: victor.. .omnibus veniam petentibus civibus peperci, "as
victor I spared all citizens seeking pardon"). The two major instances of
Octavian's clemency in 31/30 cited here by Dio he deems worthy of rhetorical
repetition at the time of Augustus' death (see 56.38.2): C. Sosius, eos. 32 and
commander of part of Antony's fleet at Actium (50.14.1-2n), was later fully
integrated into the Augustan regime; and M. Aemilius Scaurus, son^of Mucia,
was singled out by Dio because he was half-brothr to Sextus Pompey.
Sattler (Augustus 21-22) adds to the names of those pardoned C. Furnius
(see 52.42.4n) and a Metellus, and he opts for Dio's version that Octavian
"killed many" rather than Velleius' emphasis on clemency. On Augustus'
policy and decisions on "enemies" at this time, see Syme Revolution 299-300.
 1.1-4.8: THE AFTERMATH OF ACTIUM (31-30 B.C.) 125

3.1-2 oiii&o tv 'Avtoviefav oxpatiootcbv: Having emphasized

Octavian's punishment of "many leaders" who were Antony's partisans, Dio
now, for rhetorical effect, contrasts this with Octavian's moderation toward the
mass of Antony's soldiers, who were incorporated into his own armies and took
the oath to him. We take Dio to mean that after Actium Octavian discharged
(with bonuses of cash and land?) time-served citizens who had campaigned with
him in all his wars. "The rest"younger men, Antonine troops (who were sent
to new stations), and non-citizens (who were discharged)were presented only
with cash. Cf. 51.4.5; Keppie Colonisation 74, who considers the distinction to
be between time-served citizens from both armies and the mass.
Dio dwells on Octavian's difficulties with those discharged from the
service, while Hyginus (177L) stresses Octavian's generosity: Dtvus Augustus
in adsignata orbi terrarum pace exercitus qui aut sub Antonio aut Lepido
militaverant pariter et suorum legionum milites colonos fcit, alios in Italia,
alios in provinciis ("The deified Augustus, in establishing peace ifor the world,
treating equally the armies that had campaigned under Antony or Lepidus and the
soldiers of his own legions, established them in colonies, some in Italy, others
in the provinces"). On the triumviral and Augustan colonies in Italy, see Brunt
Manpower 337, 608-610. Octavian's moderate treatment of the troops of
Lepidus and Antony was an extraordinary move towards reconciliation: it
signalled the end of private armies and their "depoliticalization," since all Roman
troops were now unified under one commander as representative of the res
publica Romana. On Octavian's settlement of the veterans, see further 51.4.2-
8n.
Dio dwells too on Octavian's rigorous handling of the troops in 31/30: his
demobilization and disarming of many, the dispatch to kaly of superannuated
soldiers without discharge (cf= Suet. Aug. !7.3), and pie redeployment of some
legions to new posts. Bonuses, whether in land or njoney, Vere promised, but
implementation was postponed to a later time, when funds would become
available (see 51.4.2-8n). According to Dio, Octavian acted expeditiously to
prevent a repetition of the conditions that triggered the mutiny in Sicily in 36
(see 49.13.1-14.3n). At that time, as in 31/30, Dio emphasizes, Octavian did
not yield to the demands of the demobilized troops and succeeded in winning
them over. Dio may here have in mind his own disciplinary severity toward his
troops as governors>i Pannonia Superior (see 80.1.2, 4.2; Millar Study 24-26),
and die adverse effect of this on his reputation thereafter, mus emphasizing by
contrast the erosion of discipline in the third century. On the import of this
regarding the question of the date of composition of Dio's History, see the
Introduction to this volume.
126 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

3 3 Toi>...eXet>8pm>: To finance Octavian's war mobilization in 32,

freebom persons (presumably in Italy and the western provinces) were taxed 25%
of their income; and freedmen in Italy worth over 200,000 sesterces were
subjected to a capital levy of 12.5%, in four installments, on their property (see
50.10.4n). After Actium, Octavian forgave these freedmen the last installment
(i.e., 3.125%), still suspecting their loyalty, which had been questionable during
the war (cf. 50.10.4-6n). Dio is silent on the possible remittance of tax on the
income of me freebom.

3.4 t v otpaiiapxinv: This is a general term, used by Dio for military

commanders of various ranks. Cf. Vrind De Vocabulis 104-109.
\
3.5 KatapovTJoosoiv 8 T I utne-b ^y: Dio may here be striving for a
contrastive analogy between Maecenas' personal inability to control Rome and
Italy because he was only an eques, and the power and important role of the
senatorial praefectus urbi in his own time (see 52.21.1-2n). Dio's statement on
Maecenas was obviously coloured by his own negative attitude toward
equestrians in his own day.
Dio does not specify precisely how long Maecenas' second command in
Rome and Italy lasted (for his first appointment as surrogate for Octavian, see
49.16.2n, where Dio speaks broadly of Maecenas exercising authority repeatedly
and tin jcoXv; cf. 55.7.1, wl 4toA.v xpvov, "for a long time"). One view is
that Octavian left Maecenas in charge when he left Italy in 31 for the campaign
against Antony (CAH 10.99; MRR 2.424); another view is that he was present
at Actium, but was sent back to Rome to deal with the conspiracy of Lepidus
(J.-M. Andr, Mcne, Annales Litt. Univ. Besanon 86 [Paris, 1967], 64-71).
But it is not proven that Maecenas was at Actium (cf. R 14.210-211 =
Maecenas 6 [Kappelmacherj). A safe conciusion is that Dio's "for a long time"
covers about two years, from the fall of 31 to the summer of 29.

3.5-7 aqpaylSa: Dio's treatment of the successive seal symbols used by

Augustus is incomplete (see Suet. Aug. 50; Pliny HN 37.8, 10). Up to 31
B.C. he used the sphinx as seal, to 27 a portrait of Alexander the Great, and
probably after 27 a self-portrait. Dio omits reference to the Alexander image
perhaps because it was a temporary one. The caput Augusti was retained as
dynastic symbol by Augustus' successors, not only Julio-Claudians but all
emperors up to Dio's time (except Galba and perhaps Hadrian: cf. SHA Hadr.
26.7). See H.U. Instinsky, Die Siegel des Kaisers Augustus (Baden-Baden,
1962), 9-38. 43.
 1.1-4.8: THE AFTERMATH OF ACTIUM (31-30 B.C.) 127

3.7 to 5efaepov...0Toixetov: The simple substitution cipher described

here by Dio (also Suet. Aug. 88; de vir. ill. 117 = Reifferscheid pl37) involved
representing A by B, B by C, etc., and die last letter of the Roman alphabet, X,
by AA. See E. Malcovati, lmperatoris Caesaris Augusii Operum Fragmenta,
4th ed. (Torino, 1962), 15. Dio (40.9.3) and Suetonius (Caes. 56.6) say that
Caesar used a similar cipher, in which the plain-text was altered by the
substitution of the fourth letter for the first: e.g., D for A. Such rudimentary
ciphers are, of course, easy to break, and this raises the question whether Dio
(and Suetonius, or a common source) knew the actual ciphers used by Caesar and
Augustus. The Greeks had invented more subtle ciphers, which were well
known to the Romans.

4.1 iivornpicov: For Octavian's initiation into the Eleusintan Mysteries,

see also 54.9.10; Suet. Aug. 93.

4.2 npooi&xoxr. Perhaps Dio alludes here to the conspiracy of M. Aemilius

Lepidus apparently in 30 B.C. (Vell. Pat, 2.88, with Woodman's note).

4.2-8 Settlement of Veterans, 30 B.C. Dio dates Octavian's presence

in Italy early in 30, during his fourth consulship (entered on 1 January while he
was in Asia: Suet Aug. 26.3), which he served with M. Crassus, grandson of
the triumvir (cf. 51.23.2-27.3n). Dio comments that Crassus had not previously
held the praetorship. Plausibly Crassus, formerly a partisan of Antony, received
an advance patronage appointment to this office from Octavian for changing
sides (cf. R. Syme, "Piso Frugi and Crassus Frugi," JRS 50 [1960], 17).
During the triumviral period, electoral irregularities of ail kinds were normal: cf.
F. Millar, "Triumvirate and Principate," JRS 63 (!973), 51-53. Dio may be
calling attention in this way to career irregularities in his own time, as a
symptom of analagous dangerous instability.
Octavian's emergency return from Samos (Dio 51.4.3; Plut. Ant. 73.3) to
Italy, where he remained twenty-seven days at Brundisium (Suet Aug. 17.3),
resulted in his first major settlement of the veterans question. His policy was to
settle veterans, including some of Antony's troops, in colonies, presumably as
reserves. Antony's veterans received either money bonuses or were settled in the
provinces overseas. To-provide land in Italy for his own veterans, he
expropriated communities that had shown pro-Antonian sentiments. biRG 16.1
he affirmed that pecuniam [pro] agris quos in consulatu meo quarto.. xuisignavi
militibus solvi municipis ("I paid money to the municipalities for die lands that
I assigned to the soldiers in my fourth consulship"). Payment for land
128 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
expropriated was an important innovation, but Octavian did not possess adequate
funds until the royal treasury of Cleopatra came into his hands in August of 30.
On the whole, the colonization policy of Octavian remained Western and Italian,
primarily for the defence of Italy. Because of financial stringencies and me
scarcity of good land in Italy, he settled his veterans largely in existing Caesarian
colonies, making new foundations especially in Spain and perhaps also in Africa
(in the East, only Patrae was clearly a newly founded colony of Augustus). See
Grant Imperium 304-307; on Patrae cf. Brunt Manpower 599.
The financial stringency at Brundisium was so great (as Dio says) that
Octavian offered to auction off his own possessions and those of his friends to
provide the necessary funds. (Dio's triple negative at 51.4.8 underscores his own
view that the proposed auction was a sham.) Dio's own suggestion in
Maecenas' speech to Augustus (52.28.1-4n)that the imperial estates be sold to
raise money for die soldiersmay have originated in this gesture of Octavian.
Only later was Octavian able to discharge the debts incurred in the settlement of
the veterans in 30 (see 51.17.6-8n).
Displaced Italians and Antonian veterans appear to have been settled not
only in Dyrrachium and Philippi but also at Cassandrea and Dium in Macedonia,
as well as in northern Italy (e.g., at Bononia and Brixia), and perhaps also at
Carthage (cf. Brunt Manpower 332, 598-599). Dio's report of the uprooting of
Antonian communities and their transfer to the provinces appears to be belied by
inscriptional evidence that they remained on their Italian lands (Keppie
Colonisation 76).
It is estimated by Brunt (Manpower 335-342) that, of both Octavian's and
Antony's veterans, all seasoned Italian troops, ea 80,000-90,000 (perhaps even
as many as 140,000) were demobilized after Actium. Of these, about 57,000
were settled injtaly (Keppie [Colonisation 75, 82] says 40,000-50,000), the rest
in the provinces. The size of the veteran allotments of land has been estimated
to range from 5.5 to 10.5 iugera (H.-C. Schneider, Das Problem der
Veteranenversorgung in der spteren rmischen Republik [Bonn, 1977], 234-
235). Octavian's action now was die last major forced redistribution of landed
property in Italy.
On Octavian's settlement of veterans, see E.G. Hardy, "Augustus and his
Legionaries," CQ 14 (1920), 188-191; Tarn CQ 26 (1932), 75-81; Brunt
Manpower 237, 332-337, 342-344, 505, 509-512, 598-599; H. Aigner, Die
Soldaten als Machtfaktor in der ausgehenden rmischen Republik (Innsbruck,
1974), 128-129; Schneider, op. cit. 231-235.
 5.1-10.9: OCTAVIANS VICTORY IN EGYPT (30 B.C.) 129
5.1-10.9: OCTAVIAN'S VICTORY IN EGYPT (cf. Map 2)

The last pocket of resistance to Octavian was in Egypt. Dio now turns his
attention away from Rome and Italy to narrate the final chapter of the struggle
against Antony and Cleopatra. The events relating to the Egyptian campaign
cover a span of about five months, from the end of February or early March,
when Octavian sailed from Brundisium, to the death of Antony on 1 August.
Dio is less interested in die military manoeuvres and confrontations man in the
moral decay of Antony and the treachery on Cleopatra's part
On the question of Dio's dependence on Livy for this account of the war in
Egypt, scholars differ sharply: see Introduction, "Dio's Sources for Books 49-
52." For a detailed analysis of the relationship between Livy Per. 133 and Dio's
account of the events of 30, see Manuwald Dio 231-239, who rejects a Livian
source.

5.1 tptaK0Otf)...'f|upi: "On the thirtieth day" after his arrival in

Brundisium is imprecise: see 51.4.2-8n.

5.2 5i& TO io6|io: I.e., the portage (diolkos) of the Isthmus of Corinth.
See J.G. O'Neill, Ancient Corinth, Johns Hopkins University Studies in
Archeology 8 (Baltimore, 1930), 10-13; H.N. Fowler and R. Stilwell, Corinth.
Results of the Excavations of the American School of Classical Studies at
Athens 1 (Cambridge, Mass., 1932), 49-52.
TT|V 'Aoiav: Dio is imprecise. Octavian's headquarters were at
Samos (Suet. Aug. 17.3).

5.3 Tfj neXoKOvWjoov: Plutarch (Ant. 67A) specifies that they stopped
at Taenarum.

5.4-5 JCoAAo...q>6ve'uae: There is insufficient reason to dispute

information Dio found in his sources, mat Cleopatra executed leading men in
Egypt at this time, both to eliminate pockets of disaffection and to amass a war
chest by confiscating their (landed) estates. Tarn (CAH 10.31, 36-37) attributes
to Octavian's propaganda the charge mat she also despoiled Egyptian temples,
even the most sacred. Broughton (AJPh 63 [1942], 328-332) accepts Dio's
statement on the grounds that the situation for Cleopatra was desperate, and that
there no longer existed an ancestral treasure of the Ptolemies. Cf. 51.17.6
(Cleopatra plundered dedications from the most sacred shrines) and Jos. AJ
15.90. See F. Millar, "The Mediterranean and the Roman Revolution: Politics,
War and the Economy," P&P 102 (1984), 20.
130 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

Artavasdes (Armenian Artauasd), son of Tigranes, had been under

confinement in Alexandria (for treachery to Antony in the Parthian War) since
his exhibition in Antony's triumph; on him, see 49.25.1, 5, 33.1-3, 39.2-
40.3n. His head was sent to Artavasdes, king of Media Atropatene, whose
daughter lotape had been affianced to Alexander Helios in 34 (cf. 51.16.1 -2n); on
this Artavasdes, see 49.25.1, 33.1-2, 40.2,44.1-4.

5.6 tt|V Ai6i)v: I.e., Cyrene. Lucius Pinarius Scarpus, nephew and
one of the heirs of Julius Caesar (he was the son of his elder sister Julia), and
Antony's legatus at Philippi, had been posted by Antony in Cyrene as
commander of four legions. He refused at this time to deliver the legions to
Antony; later he turned them over to Cornelius Gallus (see 51.9.In; Plut. Ant.
69.2). He was confirmed by Octavian as governor of Cyrene, a post he retained
apparently until after 27. See MRR 2.422; filR1 P 311; RE 20.1404-1406 =
Pinarius 24 (Mnzer); BMCEmp. 1.111.

6.1-2 TO'b DVE: To regularize the succession to the throne of Egypt,

Cleopatra inducted her son, Ptolemy XV (popularly known in Egypt as
Caesarion, "son of Caesar"), into the ephebate (at age 16); at the same time,
Antony's eldest son by Fulvia, Marcus Antonius (popularly known as Antyllus,
i.e., Antonillus, "little Antony"), assumed the toga virilis at 14. If Caesarion
was born in 47, Caesar may have been his father (for Dio's scepticism about his
paternity, see 47.31.5). The most balanced treatment of the tangled and much
disputed subject of Caesar's paternity is H. Heinen, "Csar und Kaisarion,"
Historia 18 (1969), 181-203; cf. J.P.V.D. Baisdon, CR 10 (1960), 68-71.

6.3 pi>6pv Qkaaaav: Dio's "Red Sea" is equivalent to the modern

Red Sea. Seelbelow, 51.7.In.

6.5 oKT)XTpov: Cleopatra's proffering to Octavian of sceptre, crown, and

throneinsignia of client rulers of the Roman empirewas, in effect, a
concession that she was prepared to assume the status of client ruler in
Octavian's reorganization of the East after Actium. Other client rulers, like
Herod, went through the same ceremonial, with a view to reconfirmation.

6.5-6 Cleopatra's Treachery Against ^Antony. The two principal

versions of the events leading up to the death of Antony, those of Dio and
Plutarch (Ant. 69-77), differ in detail but are in the main similar: both are
sensational narratives and both emphasize Cleopatra's acts of treachery to
Antony, Dip's more so than Plutarch's. Dio's, for example, does not contain
 5.1-10.9: OCTAVIAN'S VICTORY IN EGYPT (30 B.C.) 131
Plutarch's report that she requested that her children be allowed to succeed her,
Antony's offer to return to private life in Egypt or Greece (Plut Ant. 72.1), or
Octavian's proposal that Cleopatra kill or expel Antony. Dio intersperses his
narrative with KpwpotTOVAvtcoviot) (51.6.5), X9pcx (51.6.6, 9.6), a report of
betrayal of military objectives (e.g., of Pelusium: 51.9.5), and treachery in many
other forms (51.10.1 -9). Three major acts of treachery are attributed to Cleopatra
by Dio: that at Pelusium; betrayal to Octavian of ships off the coast of
Alexandria (51.10.4); and false reports of her death sent to Antony (51.10.5-6;
cf. Livy Per. 133). The details in Plutarch and Dio on Cleopatra's treachery are
a formidable array, but modern scholarship tends to regard stories of Cleopatra's
perfidy as literary inventions stemming from contemporary propaganda hostile to
her. It is not inconceivable that a resilient Cleopatra thought of ways to salvage
something for herself by making a separate peace with Octavian.
On the doubtfulness of Dio's and Plutarch's versions of Cleopatra's
treachery, see: Blumenthal WS 36 (1914), 92-97; Tarn JRS 21 (1931), 196*197;
Levi Athenaeum 15 (1937), 7-11; Levi Tempo 416-4?1; HjVolkmann,
Cleopatra: A Study in Politics and Propaganda (New York, 195$), 193-196,
199-200 (= Kleopatra: Politik und Propaganda [Mnchen, 1953]); W.R.
Johnson, "A Queen, A Great Queen? Cleopatra and the Politics of
Misrepresentation," Arion 6 (1967), 387-402. See also the excellent
bibliographical essay on Cleopatra by Volkmann (op. cit. 220-231). On the
contemporary propaganda against Cleopatra, see Becher Kleopatra passim.

7.1 v a . . . o i 'Apdioi... K0ttitpi)oav: "the Arabians burned the

ships." Q. Didius was commander (no title is preserved) of the Syrian legions:
MRR 2.421; RE 5.407 = Didius 4 (Mnzer).
See above, 51.6.3-4, for the plans of Antony and Cleopatra, in the event of
flight from Egypt, to establish bases of operations in Spain or or. the epoGpu
dXaoaa. Plutarch (Ant. 69.2-3) states that Cleopatra tried to drag ships
across the isthmus between the Mediterranean Sea and the pvQp (0a<rcra)
at the narrowest point, so as to launch them ei tv 'Apaiieov KAJIOV. The
"Arabian Gulf should be the Gulf of Suez; the "Red Sea" should be the modern
Red Sea, not the Persian Gulf. The shortest route from the Mediterranean across
the isthmus to the Gulf of Suez is ea 150 km; Plutarch reckons it to be 300
stades (cf. 51.19.6-7n and 52.21.2, where Dio gives 100 Roman miles as 750
stades). Cleopatra is said to have abandoned the project when Arabs of Petra set
fire to the first ships. These were Nabataean Arabs, perhaps Egyptian
mercenaries used as border guards and acting probably under orders of Syllaeus,
grand vizier of King Obodas III (ea 30-9 B.C.), Roman client ruler. His
predecessor, King Malichus I (Maliku, ea 47-30 B.C.), had followed the
132 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
customary policy of small states in the Near East: submission to the nearest
power. In 40 he joined the Parthians (for which he wasfinedby Ventidius), later
furnished contingents to Antony at Actium, and finally went over to Octavian
after Actium. See RE 2.353 = Arabia (Mller); A. Kammerer, Petra et la
Nabatne (Paris, 1929-1930), 1.186, 195-196; N. Glueck, Deities and Dolphins.
The Story of the Nabataeans (New York, 1965), 531; M. Lindner, Petra und das
Knigreich der Nabater, 3rd ed. (Mnchen, 1980), 60-64; M. Sartre, "Rome et
les Nabatens la fin de la Rpublique (65-30 av. J.C.)," REA 81 (1979), 47-
48; cf. G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), 43.
5r)um Kal...5vvarai X6VTE: "All the peoples and rulers" is one
of Dio's rhetorical exaggerations.

7.2-7 xi TO icXo|iaxiai...Tpe9|ievoi: Dio's account-^f "the

men being trained for gladiatorial games," and of the exploits of the gladiators
from Cyzicus seems to be a rhetorical topos: while client kings and eminent
Romans self-servingly changed sides, gladiators (often condemned criminals)
remained loyal to Antony, and tried to fight their way to Egypt to support him
(cf. 41.62-63 for a similar treatment by Dio of the persons who went over to
Caesar, abandoning Pompey after he had granted them favours). Is it possible
that these gladiators were of Parthian origin (taken during Antony's Parthian
campaign), and were trying to fight their way back home rather than to join
Antony? Dio does not mention that Herod also sent a force to help contain them
(Jos. AJ 15.195; BJ 1392); and we must question his statement that the
gladiators were permitted to occupy Daphne, an elegant suburb of Antioch,
where they remained for about two years. On Amyntas, made king of Galatia by
Antony in 37/36, see 49.32.3n; on Amyntas and Tarcondimorus Philopator (one
of "the sons of Tarcondimotus"), see 51.2.1-3n.

7.7 TOO MeaaXov: M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus (consul in 31), one

of the memorable figures of the Augustan Age, had changed allegiance from
Brutus and Cassius to Antony, and finally to Octavian. He appears to have been
governor of Syria in 28 when, by deception, he liquidated the problem of the
gladiators, the only known event of his governorship. The poet Tibullus was on
his staff, and may have made his way to Syria alone, after falling ill en route at
Corcyra (Eleg. 1.3). See J. Hammer, Prolegomena to an Edition of the
Panegyricus Messalae (Diss. Columbia, 1925); RE 8A.131-157 = Valerius 261
(Hanslik).

8.2-3 ToupouXXiov: Dio is in error in giving Turullius' praenomen as

Publius. Coins struck by him in 31 read D(ecimus) Tur(ullius): see BMCRep.
 5.1-10.9: OCTAVIAN'S VICTORY IN EGYPT (30 B.C.) 133
2.531; RE 7A.1451-1452 = Turullius 1 (Mnzer); MRR 2.326, 350, 367,
Suppl. 64. For the context of his execution, see 51.2.4-6n.

8.4-7 tfj... KXeoxritipct... : To win maximum concessions from

Octavian, Cleopatra gathered in her mausoleum all the wealth she had amassed
and threatened to burn everything. From this point on Octavian's negotiations
were guided more by determination to obtain the treasure than desire to take her
alive.

9.1-6 Antony's Losses. Cornelius Gallus (see 51.17.4n), aide de camp

of Octavian with the title praefectus fabrum (since as equestrian he could not
have a regular military title), was now in command of the legions of Pinarius
Scarpus (see 51.5.6n) in Cyrene. Dio does not mention Antony's attempt at
suicide at Paraetonium (Plut. Ant. 69.2; modem Misra Matruh), which was the
western fortress harbour of Egypt, as Pelusium was die eastern counterpart, the
two constituting Aegypti cornua (Florus 2.21.9; Oros. 6.19.135 cf. Manuwald
Dio 232 n409). As prelude to his account of the fall of Alexandria, Dio
highlights Antony's incompetence at Paraetonium and Cleopatra's betrayal at
Pelusium and later (51.10.4-6).
With SeSo^coto (9.5), cf. 48.24.2; 49.33.4; 50.5.1, 26.5. The theme of
servitium amoris ("slavery of love") was invented, it would appear, by
Propertius as a literary topos and to provide a literary persona for himself,
recalling the "bondage" of Antony, who was painted in Octavian's propaganda as
a degraded figure enslaved by Cleopatra. See F.O. Copley, "Servitium Amoris
in the Roman Elegists," TAPhA 78 (1947), 285-300; J. Griffin, "Propertius
and Antony," JRS 67 (1977), 17-26; R.O.A.M. Lyne, "Servitium Amoris"
CQ 29(1979), 117-130.

10.1-9 Antony's Suicide. Cf. Livy Per. 133: in ultima desperatione

rerum, praecipue occisae Cleopatrae falso tumore impulsus se ipse interfecit ("In
final desperation, especially impelled by a false rumour that Cleopatra had been
killed, he committed suicide"). On plans for flight to Spain, see above, 51.6.3-
4, 7.1n. The names of the two female attendants (10.6) are Iras and Charmion
(cf. Plut. Ant. 85.4); they and the eunuch later committed suicide too (51.14.3).
The joint mausoleum of Cleopatra and Antony (10.8-9) was still unfinished.
134 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
11.1-15.7 CLEOPATRA AND OCTAVIAN

Dio highlights the drama of the negotiations with Cleopatra in the week to ten
days before her death (cf. 51.14.3-5n), emphasizing her cunning and control of
her own destiny.

11.1 TV xprjuoYtcw'- Cleopatra's final playing card was her control of the
vast treasure stored in the mausoleum, which she threatened to destroy by fire.

11.2 xo0ctvev: On Cleopatra's determination to die "like a queen", see

below, 51.13.4-14.6n. Dio's statement that she possessed asps and snakes in
the mausoleum at this time we may take as speculation by hindsight. On
Cleopatra's quest for euthanasia and her testing of various types of capital
punishment on condemned persons in order to select the least painful method,
see G. Garuti, ed., Bellum Actiacum a papiro Herculanensi 817 (Bologna, 1958),
81-84, cols. v-vi.

11.4 rtv te ripoKO'uXiov...Kai 'ExapoSixov: The freedman

Epaphroditus may have been an interpreter. Gaius Proculeius (RE 23.72-74 =
Proculeius 2 [Hanslik]), a wealthy knight and intimate friend of Octavian, was
apparently also close to Antony (Plut. Ant. 77.4). A step-brodier of Terentia,
Maecenas' wife, he participated in the Battle of Actium.
Dio does not state that at this time the treasure of Cleopatra was also seized
and removed from the mausoleum.

11.5 TO toS 'AvTOviou ocbua: For the embalming of Antony, see

below, 51.15. In.

11.6-13.3 StaXex6f)va{ Ti Tip Kafoapi: There is no reason to doubt

that a meeting between Cleopatra and Octavian took place, in Cleopatra's
quarters in the royal palace. Tam comments that "two civilizations, soon to be
fused, stood face to face in their persons" (CAH 10.109). With Dio's xlescription
(12.1) of an elegant room, costly couch, and studied use of mourning garb by
Cleopatra, cf. Plutarch's vignette (Ant. 83.1) of a mean bed and Cleopatra's
dishevelled appearance and clothing. Only Octavian's version of what was said
and done at this private conference would have survived, if indeed he disclosed it.
The story of her attempts to seduce him "was written, not to vilify Cleopatra,
but to glorify the continence of Octavian.... It was some literary man's inven-
tion, after the model of well-known stories of the continence of Alexander" (Tarn
JRS 21 [1931], 197). Dio's intent here was to portray the victory of virtue over
 11.1-15.7: CLEOPATRA AND OCTAVIAN (30 B.C.) 135

vice (cf. Florus 2.21.9: pulchritude infra pudicitiam principis fuir, "beauty was
second to the continence of the princeps"). Now that Octavian had her wealth,
his strategy changed to keeping her alive for his triumph.
Sections 12.1-5 are filled with rare diction: twelve words rarely used by
Dio, five of them only in this passage. Is this a purple passage of his own
composition, or did he find the colour in one of his sources?

12.2 ppi)8u,touivi): "gracefully," a word restored by Boissevain from the

manuscript reading puBuiopivn.; cf. rjpuOpuxauvT) ("blushing") in Xiphilinus'
text.

13.2 uupioov Gavdxov xakzxmpov: On Cleopatra's determination

not to be led in triumph, see below, 51.13.4- 14.6n.

13.4-14.6 Cleopatra's Suicide. The other principal source on her

suicide is Plutarch (Ant. 78-86). Dio's verdict here"no onie knows for certain"
how she died (14.1: TO uv ocwp oSel oSev; similarly Plot. Ant. 86.2; cf.
Suet. Aug. 17.4 [putabatur]; Str. 17.795; Manuwald Dio 233 n420)is
calculated to arouse anticipatory interest in details of the bizarre death of the
famous queen. Livy (Per. 133) records the official version of her suicide:
voluntaria morte defuncta (cf. Manuwald Dio 234-235). Though Dio and
Plutarch leave the manner of her death open, there is little doubt that she died of
an asp bite. But how asps were introduced into her chambers and where they
disappeared to are equivocal, especially since the aspis, a very venomous
Egyptian cobra, can reach a length of six feet. The other meory (also mentioned
by Plutarch) involved her concealing a deadly poison in a hollow needle (Dio's
.6vri) kept in her hair (Plut. Ant. 86.2: v Kvn/mSi KOIXTJ).
Only one asp is mentioned by Plutarch (Ant. 85^86) an Suetonius (Aug.
17.4) as well, but it is more probable that she used two coinas (Verg. Aen.
8.697; Serv, ad loc. langues); Hor. Carm. 1.37.26-27; Prop. 3.11.53^54; Florus
2.21.11 ), symbolizing the double uraeus as royal insignia of the pharaons. Such
an interpretation of the choice of cobras is preferable to other theories: that the
bite of a cobra granted apotheosis to her, or that it involved Isis symbolism.
See E. Wiegand, Notes on the Eighth Book of the Commentary ofServius on
Vergil's Aeneid (Diss. Columbia, 1936), on 8.697; J.G. Griffiths, "The Death
of Cleopatra VII," JEA 47 (1961), 113-118; R.G.M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, A
Commentary on Horace: Odes Book 1 (Oxford, 1970), 409-410; Scuderi
Commento 118-119. It is the case that Octavian did not mount "great
precautions to prevent her suicide, though "the story of the snakes is supported
by a wealth of unsubstantial evidence" (Nisbet-Hubbard, loc. cit). B. Baldwin
136 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
("The Death of Cleopatra VII," JEA 50 [1964], 181-182) criticizes Griffiths'
view, cautioning that it is not certain whether Cleopatra died of the bite of one
or two asps, or in some other manner, though Augustus believed in the asp
theory.
Galen's hypothesis (Ad Pisonem de Theriaca 8 [14.235-237 Khn]), derived
from observation of executions in Alexandria, was that she applied the asp to her
breast, at a point closest to the heart. This theory has no historical basis, and
the medical analysis is dubious; yet this image was the one that greatly
influenced depictions of the death of Cleopatra during the Renaissance. See the
splendid article of F. Sbordone, "La morte di Cleopatra nei medici greci," Rivista
indo-greco-italica 14 (1930), fasc. 1-2, l-2'0; and M.A. Levi, "Cleopatra e
l'aspide," P f 9 (1954), 293-295; Becher Kleopatra 151-173.
In 51.11.2 Dio states that she died v...T(p vuom Kal v icp axn.u.aTi
at>TTj [sc. TT)C 5x)vaoTeia], "with the name and dignity of a sovereign" (far
me formula, cf. frg. 36.6; 54.3.1); Plutarch (Ant. 85.3) has her "adorned in royal
array," wearing the double uraeus on the front of her headdress, as befitted an
Egyptian queen. Non humilis, says Horace (Carm. 1.37.32). See Livy Per.
133; Porphyrion and Pseudacron on Horace loc. cit., for her repeated cry o
piauetKJOuou, non triumphabor ("I will not be led in triumph").
It is likely that Iras and Charmion took poison, since the cobras could not
produce new venom for some time (Griffiths, op. cit. 118).

14.3-5 *P6XXou: Dio's statement that Octavian summoned Psylli (cf. Suet.
Aug. 17.4) has been doubted (cf. Tarn, CAH 10.110). This is not mentioned by
Plutarch, and Dio's digression on the Psylli is sensationalized and manifestly
incredible. A Libyan people of the fringe of the Cyrenaica, they were said to be
immune to venom and were famous for their cures, especially of snake bites:
their methods were respected by doctors, even if the Psylli also used magic
spells. Sec RE 23.1464-1476 = Psylloi (Treidler); Manuwald Dio 261. On
Suetonius as a possible source for this passage of Dio, cf. Millar Study 86.
Antony had died on the day of the capture of Alexandria, 1 August,
Cleopatra perhaps on 10 August. See T.C. Skeat, "The Last Days of Cleopatra.
A Chronological Problem," JRS 43 (1953), 98-100.

15.1 ifj afrtfj fpcn: On the embalment and entombment of Antony and
Cleopatra, cf. 51.11.5, 12.7; Plut. Ant. 86.4; Suet. Aug. 17.4; Floras 2.21.11.
Their joint mausoleum stood among about a dozen royal tombs in the necropolis
of the Ptolemies in Alexandria's centre. A consequence of Octavian's
impression of their magnificent mausoleum was his decision to build his own
tomb in the Campus Martius in Rome (see esp. 53.30.5), in 28 B.C. shortly
 11.1-15.7: CLEOPATRA AND OCTAVIAN (30 B.C.) 137

after his return, when he was only 35 years old: it was originally conceived not
as a dynastic monument but as a counter-image to Antony's tomb in the
necropolis of the Ptolemaic kings. See H. Thiersch, "Die alexandrinische
Knigsnekropole," JDAI25 (1910), 55-97; K. Kraft, "Der Sinn des Mausoleums
des Augustus," Historia 16 (1967), 189-206 (reprinted in H. Castritius and D.
Kienast, eds., Gesammelte Aufstze zur antiken Geschichte und
Militrgeschichte [Darmstadt, 1973], 29-46).

15.2-4 Sketches of Antony and Cleopatra. Dio's analysis of

contrasting virtues and vices in Antony's character was made in accordance with
the standard roster of the virtues of a Roman emperor. These had grown from
the four cardinal virtues of Augustus (see RG 34.2) into a host of imperial
"virtues" by the third century. It is noteworthy that Dio has. sought here to
attribute to Antony such virtues as pietas (t Sov), virtus (vSpeiot),
magnanimitas (jieYaXoyi)%ia), liberalitas, dementia, all of them, however,
nullified in him by their opposites as vices. In the case of Cleopatra, Dio
cannot find any other virtue but laudable ambition. See M P . CharlesWorth,
"The Virtues of the Roman Emperor. Propaganda and the Creation of Belief,"
PBA 23 (1937), 105-133; L.K. Born, "The Perfect Prince According to the Latin
Panegyrists," AJPh 55 (1934), 20-25; RE 22.2234-2253 = Princeps (Wickert).
On the biographical emphases in imperial historiography, see Introduction,
"Dio's Methods and Style."

15.5-7 xv... JtaiSv a v t c b v : Dio heightens the pathos of the

execution of Antyllus (now only fourteen) by emphasizing two things: that he
had been engaged to Julia, and that he sought asylum in a shrine of Antony,
presumably in Alexandria. But the engagement of AntyHus and Julia, which
took place in 37 at the making of the Treaty of Tarenjhim, when he was six or
seven and Julia two years old, must of course have been dissolved years before.
On Caesarion, see 49.41.l-2n; 50.1.5, 6.1-2n. On his execution, cf. Suet.
Aug. 17.5; Plutarch's OK yet0ov noA/UKaiootpui, "it is not good to have
many Caesars" {Ant. 81.2, attributed to Areius), is a parody of Homer //. 2.204:
OWK yaOov Jtota>Koipavir|, "the rule of many is not good."
The twins of Cleopatra and Antony, Cleopatra Selene and Alexander
Helios, who were bom in 41/40, were exhibited in Octavian's triumph over
Egypt (51.21.8), and then brought up in Octavia's household. The marriage of
Cleopatra Selene to Juba II, king of Numidia and Mauretania, took place about
20 B.C., when she was about twenty years old. In the "Donations of
Alexandria" she had once been named queen of Cyrenaica (cf. 49.32.4-5n, 41.1-
3n). Crinagoras, the Greek court poet at Rome, celebrated her union with Juba
138 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
thus: v yvo AiyujtTou Kai Aivnc (Anth. Gr. 9.235). Alexander Helios and
Ptolemy Philadelphus (the youngest child of Cleopatra and Antony), also
brought up by Octavia, disappear from history early; they may not have reached
maturity.
Antony's younger son by Fulvia, Iulius Antonius, had remained in Rome,
where he too was brought up by Octavia. He was in high favour with
Augustus, who married him to his niece Marcella in 21, elevated him to the
consulship in 10, and to the proconsulship of Asia. Horace dedicated Carm. 4.2
to him. But in 2 B.C. he was condemned for adultery w ' * Julia and on
suspicion of treason, and committed suicide (55.10.15). Antony's two daughters
by OctaviaAntonia Maior, wife of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (eos. 16 B.C.),
and Antonia Minor, wife of Drususproduced progeny that, after Tiberius,
continued die Julio-Claudian line: Gaius, Claudius, and Nero. v
Dio does not mention Antonia, Antony's eldest child by a daughter of C.
Antonius, eos. 63 B.C.; she was perhaps no longer alive in 30 B.C. She had
been married to Pythodorus of Tralles, arichGreek, and her daughter Pythodoris
became the wife of the Roman client kings Poiemo of Pontus and Archelaus of
Cappadocia.
For Antony's children and their fates, see K.W. Meikeljohn, "Alexander
Helios and Caesarion," JRS 24 (1934), 191-195; E.F. Leon, "One Roman's
Family," CB 35 (1959), 61-65; Huzar Antony 230-232; Scuderi Commento
119-123.

16.1-18.37 OCTAVIAN'S EASTERN SETTLEMENT;

THE PROVINCE OF EGYPT (cf. Map 2)

From the fall of Alexandria in August of 30 until his triumphal entry into Rome
in August of 29, Octavian's energies were given over to stabilizing the East and
setting down the main lines of the administrative and taxation systems of the
new province of Egypt.

16.1-2 SuvaoTcov KOV aatAecav xatSe.: Dio singles out two

contrasting instances of Octavian's disposition of the children of princes and
kings held in Alexandria as hostages or under other constraints: [I] lotape (RE
9.2003 = lotape 3 [Stein]) was the daughter of King Artavasdes of Media
Atropatene (see above, 51.5.4-5n); she had been engaged to Alexander Helios in
34 (49.40.2,44.2) when he was six years old. It is a reasonable conclusion that
the engagement was terminated when Alexander Helios was taken to Rome by
Octavian. Artavasdes himself died by 20 B.C. (cf. 54.9.2). [2] Artaxes (i.e.,
Artaxias), king of Armenia, ea 33 B.C. succeeded his father Artavasdes ("the
 16.1-18.3: OCTAVIAN'S EASTERN SETTLEMENT (30-29 B.C.) 139
Armenian"), who was later executed by Cleopatra in Alexandria (see above,
51.5.4-5n; cf. 49.40.3-4). His brothers, Tigranes and Artavasdes, taken hostage
by Antony, were probably brought to Rome by Octavian. In 20, when Artaxias
was assassinated, Augustus through Tiberius installed Tigranes as king of
Armenia (54.9.4-5; cf. RG 27.2).

16.2 u,et& -riiv IJTTav: See 49.44.4, for the defeat of Artavasdes "the
Mede" by Artaxes.

16.3-4 TV 8 AiyuntioBV tfiv xe 'AAeavSpav: Octavian's

speech announcing clemency to the Alexandrians appears to have given three
reasons for this dispensation. Julian (Ep. 51 Hertlein = 111 Bidez-Cumont)
accords with Dio, but Plutarch (Ant. 80.1) substitutes the bejauty and great size
of the city for Octavian's statement of regard for Serapis. Octavian 's reference to
the Egyptian god was, as we may conjecture, politically expedient, for in fact he
harboured a basic antipathy toward Egyptian cultsnot merely the animal cults,
but those of Isis, Osiris, and Serapis. See P. Lambrechts, Augustus en de
egyptische godsdienst (Bruxelles, 1956); I. Becher, "Oktavians Kampf gegen
Antonius und seine Stellung zu den gyptischen Gttern," Altertum 11 (1965),
40-47.
On Areius Didymus of Alexandria <cf. Plut. Ant. 80), Octavian's teacher
in Greek literature and philosophy, who remained a favourite of the imperial
family, especially Livia, see H. Bardon, Les empereurs et les lettres latines
d'Auguste Hadrien (Paris, 1940), 10-11. Augustus never thoroughly mastered
Greek: he neither wrote it nor spoke it well (Suet. Aug. 89). Cf. CH.
Trahman, "The Attitude of the Roman Administration toward Latin and Greek,"
CB 27 (1951), 51-52.
j ;

16.5 TOO 'AXevSpou oua: Octavian's visit to see-j-and touchthe

mummy of Alexander the Great (cf. Suet. Aug. 18.1) established a tradition
followed by other Roman emperors who visited Egypt. It is noteworthy that,
though the Macedonian practice was cremation, Alexander's body was embalmed.
All the Ptolemaic kings and their families were cremated, up to the beginning of
the first century B.C. It is likely that Octavian declined to visit the urns of
those earlier kings and the mummies of the later ones because of protocol: he
regarded them as insignificant rulers, most of them Roman client kings. Cf. H.
Thiersch, "Die aiexandrinische Knigsnekropole," JDAl 25 (1910), 57-59, 66,
88-89. On Augustus' admiration for and imitation of Alexander, see above,
51.3.5-7n; E. Ciaceri, "L'Impero universale di Augusto," Nuova Antologia 399
(Sept.-Oct. 1938), 164-168; D. Kienast, "Augustus und Alexander," Gymnasium
140 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
76 (1969), 430-456; A. Alfldi, Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht (Bonn, 1976), 9-
11.

17.1 AYUKTOV i>KO%t\\: On the annexation of Egypt as a province, cf.

RG 27.1: Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci ; CIL 6.701, 702 (=ILS
91): Aegupto in potestatem populi Romani redacta. For Cornelius Gallus, first
prefect of Egypt, see 51.17.4n; 53.23.5-7. In addition to Roman senators,
quits illustres were also barred from Egypt, both except by express imperial
permission (Tac. Ann. 2.59.3; Hist. 1.11.1), on which see especially Geraci
Genesi 137-146. Yet eminent Romans were-absentee owners of landed estates in
Egypt under Augustus. See G.M. Parassoglou, Imperial Estates in Roman
Egypt, American Studies in Papyrology 18 (Amsterdam, 1978), 3-4, 6, 12-18,
69-73, 78-79. P.A. Brunt ("Princeps and Equits," JRS 73 [1983], 6N62)
cautions that Dio and Tacitus are retrojecting conditions of later times to the
Augustan age, for in 30 B.C. Rome was not yet dependent on the produce of
Egypt.
Octavian's reorganizational arrangements for Egypt (which was in his
provincia) were carried out in his capacity as consul; they were made in
conformity with Roman public law and ratified by vote of the People (Digest
1.17.1: lege), and the revenues of Egypt were to flow into the aerarium
publicum. It is noteworthy that Augustus himself did not again set foot in
Egypt after this, and his institutional position with regard to Egypt was not
actively monarchic. See 51.19.6n on the KpaVtnmc of Augustus in Egypt.
The unique provincial machinery established for Egypt, with an equestrian
praefectus, was an ad hoc response to the instability of the times, a product of
Roman institutional flexibility. Egypt was entrusted to an amicus of Augustus
and was a provincial post without the time limit imposed on other governors.
The elevatioir of an eques to this important position may have been intended by
Augustus as a signal to the equestrian order of its coming cooptation as partner
in the administration of the empire. See Geraci Genesi 19, 137, 142, 194. To
bolster the authority of equestrian governors, Roman senators were excluded
from Egypt, where their presence would have diminished the prefect in the eyes
of the population. Hence also inhabitants of Egypt could not be senators in
Rome.
For the incorporation of Egypt into the Roman provincial system and its
special status, see M.A. Levi, "L'esclusione dei senatori romani nell'Egitto
augusteo," Aegyptus 5 (1924), 231-235? B.A. van Groningen, "L'Egypte et
l'empire," Aegyptus 7 (1926), 189-202; P. Jouguet, La domination romaine en
Egypte aux deux premiers sicles aprs Jsus-Christ (Alexandria, 1947), 4-8; de
Martino Storia 4.853-859; C. Nicolet, L'ordre questre l'poque rpublicaine
 16.1-18.3: OCTAVIAN'S EASTERN SETTLEMENT (30-29 B.C.) 141
(312-43 av. J.-C.) (Paris, 1966), 1.225-230; Manuwald Dio 239 n453;
Campbell Emperor 344-345; Geraci Genesi 83-135, 137-189,191-195.

17.1-2 t o pqtSiov x6 t e Kocpov t v tpxfov: "the easy-going,

fickle character of the Egyptians." Dio's intense valuation of the separateness
and uniqueness of Egypt is expressed by him in the form of a rhetorical balance:
No Roman senators permitted in Egypt, no Egyptians as senators in Rome. His
contempt for Egyptians in general and Alexandrians in particular (though he did
not visit Egypt) motivated his selection of details and emphases in this passage.
He gives vent here explicitly to his dislike of Egyptians in general, and of the
vecxepoTtoa ("proneness to sedition") of Alexandrians. Elsewhere Dio's anti-
Alexandrian, anti-Egyptian prejudices abound: the people are brash, outspoken,
utterly unsuitable for the army, and cowardly; but very bloodthirsty and
destructive in frequent and massive seditions (39.58.1-2; 50.24.6), untrustworthy
(42.3.4), turbulent, prone to disturbances (42.7.3, 30.3, 34.2, 35.2, 44.2;
69.8.1a; 71.4; 78.35.2), abusive, impudent, disrespectful of authority (66.8.2-7).
See Appendix 11 on "Roman Attitudes Towards Egyptians."

17.2-3 vev ouXewtCBv: Dio's dictum, given with implied approval

that for the most part the administrative and social system settled upon Egypt by
Augustus was rigorously maintained up to his own time (ta uv XXxt Kal
vv ioxupco puXaaaexai)is a rhetorical exaggeration. There were numerous
modifications and adaptations not only by other emperors but also by Augustus
himself between 30 B.C. and A.D. 14. Dio's eyes, however, arerivetedon two
changes he regards as reprehensible: admission of a few Egyptians into the
Senate under Caracalla, and establishment of a boule in Alexandria by Septimius
Severus. Dio's contrasting statements that "Octavian instructed .the Alexandrians
to conduct the affairs of the city without a council," and mat "there is a council
(ouXeoown) in Alexandria that began under the Emperor Severus," are accurate
enoughbut taken out of context. Clearly Dio means that Octavian forbade
Alexandria to have a boule, and not that he abolished one already in existence in
retaliation and because of lack of confidence in the stability of Alexandrians, as
Geraci (Genesi 182, 195) holds. (It is not demonstrable mat there was a boule
under the late Ptolemies: contra, Geraci 177, 182.) It is abundantly clear that
Septimius Severus granted the Alexandrians a boule, and that this was
established between A.D. 200 and 202. Dio's point is that the imperial
administration came to regret this change very soon: witness me massacre by
Caracalla of Alexandrians in A.D. 215. See Millar Study 209-210.
Sturz (ad loc.) appositely cites Livy 26.16.9-10, on the Roman settlement
of the status of Capua in 211 B.C. because of its defection to Hannibal: corpus
142 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

nullum civitatis, nee senatum nee plebis concilium, nee magistratus esse: sine
consilio publico, sine imperio, multitudinem nullius rei inter se sociam, ad
consensum inhabilem fore ("The city was to have no political organization,
neither a senate, nor an assembly of the people, nor magistrates. Without public
deliberations, without political power, the common people would be completely
disunited and so unable to make common decisions"). Capua in fact remained
without municipal government until after 90 B.C.
See Appendix 12 on the problem of the Alexandrian boule.

17.3 ji' 'AvtvivoD: In this context, Dio seizes the opportunity to

criticize Caracalla for being the first to admit Egyptians into the Roman Senate.
His appeal to Augustan policy as precedent against making Egyptians senators is
a patently deceptive argumentum ex silentio. Dio may have been unaware rnat
in fact the non-Italian recruitment into the Senate under Augustus was
minuscule: out of 420 known senators, three came from Gaul and Spain and five
from the highly Hellenized East. See de Laet Samenstelling 278-279,317.
Dio, a native of Bithynia who became a Roman senator under Commodus,
obviously regarded Egyptians (who became citizens only after the Constitutio
Antoniniana, promulgated ea A.D. 212) as an undesirable, unassimilable native
element. The first Egyptian admitted to the Senate, according to Dio (76.5.3-5),
was (P.?) Aelius Coeranus, adlected by Caracalla in 212; the only other known
Egyptian senator of the third century was his son, P. Aelius Coeranus (PIR^- A
161-162). See F. Sjntenis, Die Zusammensetzung des Senats unter Septimius
Severus und Caracalla (Diss. Berlin, 1914: non vidi); P. Lambrechts, La
Composition du snat romain de Septime Svre Diocttien (193-284),
Dissertationes Pannonicae (Ser. 1) 8 (Budapest, 1937), 13 5-6, 84; Barbieri
Albo 236, 507, 541; A. Calderini, / Severi. La crisi dell'impero del HI secolo
(Bologna, 1949), 476-478 (on the influx into the Senate of Easterners, including
Dio's father Cassitts Apronianus of Nicaea, outnumbering"Italians; arid
culminating in the admission of the despised Egyptians); M. Hammond,
"Composition of the Senate A.D. 68-235," JRS 47 (1957), 79-80; H.
Halfmann, Die Senatoren aus dem stlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis
zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Hypomnemata 58 (Gttingen, 1979), 63,
71-81.
Dio does not take into account the career of Tiberius Julius Alexander
Julianus, consul suffectus 117 (?), a senator with a distinguished career, who was
perhaps a grandson of Tiberius Julius Alexander, the noted Jewish apostate,
native of Alexandria. Julianus, however, may not have been born in Egypt, or
even lived there. Cf. P. Lambrechts, La composition du snat romain de
Vaccession au trne d'Hadrien la mort de Commode (117-192) (Antwerpen,
 16.1-18.3: OCTAVIANS EASTERN SETTLEMENT (30-29 B.C.) 143

1936), 184-186 and 192; PIR21 142; G. Alfldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand
unter den Antoninen (Bonn, 1977), 81 n34. Dio also does not show interest in
the rising number of Graeco-Egyptians in high imperial posts and of equestrian
status, known to us from inscriptions and papyri, including an ab epistulis
Graecis and praefectus vigilum Valerius Titanianus, whose career ranges from the
reign of Septimius Severus to Severus Alexander and beyond. See J.F. Gilliam,
"An ab epistulis Graecis and praefectus vigilum from Egypt," Mlanges
d'histoire ancienne offerts William Seston (Paris, 1974), 217-225.

17.4 Soi>X(&6T): The term "enslaved" reveals Dio's understanding of the

harsh administration imposed on Egypt.
j t v x e . . . o i vua%6vTe... % e i p 6 r | a a v : "all those who
resisted were subdued." Dio here is more concerned with recording prodigies than
with the difficulties attending the establishment of the Roman administrative
machinery, including the taking of a census and the imposition of taxes, both of
which aroused sporadic resistance. Cornelius Gallus, first prefect of Egypt, had
to deal with a local rebellion in Heronpolis, on the isthmus near the Gulf of
Suez (Str. 17.819), and with an uprising in the Thebaid, traditional centre of
priestly opposition to the crown (Str., loc. cit.; Syncellus 583.18; Eus. [ed.
Schoene] 2, pl40). Both insurrections were swiftly suppressed by Gallus, who
proceeded to the First Cataract of the Nile, where at Philae he set up the famous
vainglorious trilingual inscription that records his military victories in Egypt
and his diplomatic successes with the king of the Ethiopians (CIL 3.14147.5 =
ILS 8995 = EJ 2 21 = IGRR 1.1293 = OGIS 654 = A. Bernand, Les
inscriptions grecques de Philae 2 [Paris, 1969], 35-37 128, with full
bibliography).
While Dio passes lightly over the unrest in Egypt, Gallus exaggerates his
victory by calling the places in the Thebai'd (other than Coptos and Thebes)
"cities;" they appear to have been villages or suburbs of Thebes. The very
fragmentary hieroglyphic part of the inscription, which, bears the date Year One
of Octavian, Twentieth of Pharmuthi (i.e., 15 April 29 B.C.), is in traditional
priestly style, eulogizing the reigning pharaon, and does not mention Gallus or
his campaigns in Egypt. The priests at Philae could not, of course, celebrate the
Roman action at Thebes; they mention only the ruling monarch, deities, and the
repulse of foreigners (presumably Ethiopians). See A. Erman, "Zu der
hieroglyphischen Inschrift," Sitzungsberichte knigl. preuss. Akad. Wiss. zu
Berlin (1896), 474-478.
The effort of M. Treu ("Nach Kleopatras Tod [P.Oxy. 2820]," Chiron 3
[1973], 221-233), to amend and reinterpret P.Oxy. 2820 so as to connect it with
military operations of Cornelius Gallus in 30/29, has been countered by N.
144 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
Lewis, "P.Oxy. 2820: Whose Preparations?," GRBS 16 (1975), 295-303.
Lewis contends that the papyrus refers to the later preparations of the prefect
Aelius Gallus for his expedition to Arabia Felix (see 53.29.3-8).
For Cornelius Gallus, see also 53.23.5-24.1. For Gallus in Egypt, see
PIR 2 C 1369; J.-P. Boucher, Caius Cornlius Gallus (Paris, 1966), 33-38; H.
Volkmann, "Zur Gallus-Inschrift auf dem Vatikanischen Obelisken,"
Gymnasium 72 (1965), 328-330; P.A. Brunt, "The Administration of Egypt,"
JRS 65 (1975), 128, 142. On the dates of his prefecture of Egypt, 30-27/26
B.C., see O. Reinmuth, The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Klio
Beiheft 34 (Leipzig, 1935, 1963), 130; A. Stein; Die Projekten von gypten in
der rmischen Kaiserzeit (Bem, 1950), 14-16; Geraci Genesi 95-100. The editio
princeps of the new Gallus papyrus is R.D. Anderson, P.J. Parsons, and R.G.M.
Nisbet, "Elegiacs by Gallus from Qasr Ibrm," JRS 69 (1979), 126-155; for theV
historical importance of the prefecture, Geraci Genesi 163-176, 195 (with
extensive bibliography).
A head from Egypt in the Cleveland Museum has been identified as
Cornelius Gallus (not, as previously, Antony) by G. Grimm, "Zu Marcus
Antonius und C. Cornelius Gallus," JDAI85 (1970), 158-170.

17.4-5 TO 5ctlji6viov: These conventional prodigies (except the behaviour

of the Apis bull) should be compared with Dio's other prodigy lists in Smilda's
Index Historicus (vol. 4 of Boissevain's Dio), 532-542 (s.v. "Prodigia"). Millar
(Study 77, 179) comments on the immense number of portents catalogued in
Dio's history, and on the historian's own guarded attitude toward them
(especially in frg. 57.22). They are reported by Dio for Egypt in 30 because
prodigia publica and their expiation were aspects of Roman religious law, which
was now applicable to Egypt as Roman territory. Cf. Livy 43.13; 45.16.5; RE
23.2286 = Prodigium (Handel); F. Luterbacher, Der Prodigienglaube und
Prodigienstil der Rmer (Burgdorf, 1904), 30-33. Regarding the reliability of
Dio's prodigy lists, see A. Klotz, "ber die Stellung des Cassius Dio unter den
Quellen zur Geschichte des zweiten punischen Krieges," RhM 85 (1936), 86-90,
who cautions that Dio (Zonaras) and Livy recorded different prodigia for the same
years.

17.6-8 v T $ aoiAiK$: "in the royal treasury" (not, as in Loeb, "in the
royal palace"). For T aatA.iKOv (= Latin fiscus; cf. 78.13.3) under the
Ptolemies, see F. Preisigke, Wrterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden 1
(Berlin, 1925), col. 258. On Cleopatra's plundering of Egyptian temples, see
above, 51.5.4-5n. With Octavian's capital levy of 66.67%, presumably on
wealthy Alexandrians, compare the triumvirs' capital levy of the same percentage
 16.1-18.3: OCTAVIAN'S EASTERN SETTLEMENT (30-29 B.C.) 145
on property during the proscriptions of 42 (47.17.1-2), and the 12.5% levy on
the property of freedmen in 32 (51.3.3n). Dio's statement on the priority given
to moneys due the soldiers, and a donative of 1000 sesterces to each soldier in
lieu of the opportunity to plunder Alexandria, may mirror conditions and specific
incidents of the third century. For instance, to spare Antioch from being
plundered in A.D. 218, Elagabalus gave 2000 sesterces to each soldier and
exacted a capital levy from the city (79.1.1); cf. Rostovtzeff SEHRE 719 n37.
On the effects of the release of vast sums of money in Italy from Cleopatra's
wealth, see below, 51.21.5n. There is a measure of antithetical rhetoric in Dio's
concluding statement (17.8) about the adornment of Roman temples from
Cleopatra's riches, since he has reported (51.5.4-5, 17.6) that she looted
Egyptian temples.

18.1 Jt6Xiv...ouv(pKioe: On "the former" Nikopolis near Actium and the

Actian Games there, see above, 51.1.3n.
6upu%a: "canals." Dio assigns to 30 B.C. the clearing out of the
long-neglected irrigation ditches by the Roman army in Egypt (cfi Suet. Aug.
18.2: militari opr), during Octavian's presence there; the purpose, of course,
was to produce bumper crops for the annona of Rome. W.L. Westermann
("Aelius Gallus and the Reorganization of the Irrigation System of Egypt under
Augustus," CPh 12 [1917], 237-2430 argues convincingly mat the bulk of the
work of canal repair was done under the second prefect, Aelius Gallus, in 27/26-
25 B.C. Contra: Holmes Architect 260.

18.2-3 Parthian Affairs. Cary (Loeb) misinterprets this passage. Dio

intends to say that Augustus entered into diplomatic negotiations with Phraates
IV, granted the pretender Tindates II asylum in Syrian but gaye assurances to
Phraates that he would not help his rival, and obtained, from Tindates a son of
Phraates to be kept as hostage in Rome.. Cf. RG |J2.1: AU me supplices
confiigerunt reges Parthorum Tiridates etpostea Phratei regis Phratisfilius. Dio
erroneously places these events in 30. Justin (42.5.6-9) specifically links the
flight of Tiridates with Augustus' campaigns in Spain, which belong in 26-25
B.C.: profugit [to Augustus in Spain] obsidem Caesari minimum Phrahatis
filiumferens, quern neglegentius custoditum rapuerat. (In 26 Tiridates struck
coins with the title philoromaios, thus assuming the status of a Roman client
king: see Debevoise Parthia 137-138; D.G. Sellwood, An Introduction to the
Coinage of Parthia [London, 1971], 167-168.) In 23, according to Dio, we, find
Tiridates and an embassy of Phraates in Rome (see 53.33.1-2), at which time
Phraates was recognized as king of Parthia and his son was restored to him by
Augustus (cf. Justin 42.5.9: Phrahati filium sine pretio remisif). See Anderson,
146 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
CAH 10.261-262; Holmes Architect 260-261 ("Octavian and Tiridates"); A.
Oltramare, "Auguste et les Parthes," REL 16 (1938), 122-131; Ziegler Bezieh-
ungen 45-47; E.W. Gray, JRS 55 (1965), 270.

19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN;

HONOURS AND POWERS

In the two years from the victory of Actium on 2 September 31 until his return
to Rome in triumph in August of 29, numerous honours and powers were
showered on Octavian by the Senate and the comitia. After his return, there x ^
a new outpouring of distinctions. There are two major difficulties in evaluating
the accuracy of these reports by Dio: he groups many of them together for
convenience in this section of Book 51 (cf. 51.19.1: v toimp Kal rei
jtptepov); and he does not specify which of them Octavian actually declined (cf.
51.20.4: JCA,T|V pa^etov, "except for a few"). Dio refers here to the fact that,
out of the profusion of honours enacted for Roman dynasts at the end of the
Republic and for emperors, they chose to accept some and declined others. See
49.15.3n.

19.1 y S a t p o x a i o o p o v : "triumphal arch." Regarding the arch of

Augustus at Brundisium, A. Degrassi argues that it is depicted on the Column of
Trajan in Rome: he proposed that Trajan departed from Brundisium, the shortest
route to Dacia, arid not from Ancona as commonly held ("La via seguita da
Traiano nel 105 per recarsi nella Dacia," RPAA 22 [1946-1947], 167-183). The
remains of the Actian Arch of Augustus in Rome were found in 1950-1953; it
stood over the road between the Temple of Julius Caesar and the Temple of
Castor and Pollux. It was replaced by the triple Parthian arch in 19 B.C., on the
inner walls of which were inscribed the Fasti Capitolini. See A. Degrassi,
"L'edificio dei Fasti Capitolini," RPAA 21 (1945-1946), 57-104; lit. 13.1, pl.
v-x; CIL 6.873; Nash Dictionary 1.92-101 (with extensive bibliography).

19.2 iept)x5a: "the podium" of the Temple of Julius Caesar, which was
dedicated 18 August 29 B.C. Cf. Fron. Aq. 129.1; Dio 51.22.2-3n.
KavTJYT)piv...jievTeTT|p{5a: This quadrennial festival was first
celebrated in 28 (53.1.4-5; cf. RG 9.1).
iepojirivlov: I.e., supplicatio (Magie De Vocabulis 153).

19.3-5 Damnatio Memoriae of Antony. Such "condemnation of

memory" resulted in removal of statues, erasure of name on inscriptions and
 19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN (30-29 B.C.) 147

coins, confiscation of property, and rescissio actorum. The last of these was the
principal aim of Octavian. Against Cleopatra, of course, no such decree was
issued (cf. Plut. Ant. 86.5), since she had no status in Roman law. Dio dates
the decree in 30; Plutarch (Cic. 49.4; cf. Ant. 86.5) specifies the consulship of
Cicero's son, 13 September to 31 October of 30. In this matter Dio, who places
the damnatio memoriae decree against Antony before his death, is more credible
than Plutarch, who dates it after Antony's death for dramatic effect, to highlight
ironic justice for Cicero's great enemy (see Andersen Dio 35-36; Fadinger
Begrndung TAI n2). Dio says (51.19.4) mat the arrival of news of Antony's
death in the consulship of Cicero's son was OK 8ee{. Cf. Plut. Cic. 49.2,
where TO Saaviov is associated with the same circumstance. Did both use the
same source?
Erasure of Antony's name and removal of his statues were not rigorously
observed in the age of Augustus. In the Fasti there is inconsistency: in some
cases his name was not excised at all, in others it was subsequently restored by
Augustus (//f.13.1.19, 56-57, 87; CIL l 2 pp28, 50, 64; cf. Tac. Ann. 3.18.1).
There exists the possibility that the erasure of Antony's name ftom the Fasti
Capitolini took place in September/October 30, in Octavian's absence, and that,
in view of the close relationship of his house with Antony's, Octavian restored
the name in 29. See Johnson Propaganda 131-161. The Fasti Triumphales
Capitolini under 40 B.C. read, without any erasure: M. Antonius M. f. M. n.
Illvir r(ei) p(ublicae) c(onstituendae) ovans quodpacem cum Imp. Caesare fecit.
See also the survival of Antony's name in other inscriptions: CIL 6.1364 (= ILS
943, Rome), 10.3781 (Capua), 4.60 ( = ILS 6375, Pompeii); 1GRR 1.1054 (=
SEG 18.641, Alexandria), 4.1375 (Nisyra in Asia); cf. JRS 47 (1957), 71-73.
On the damnatio memoriae of Antony, see RE 4^2059-2062 = Damnatio
Memoriae (Brassloff); P. Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind iri^der rmischen Kaiserzeit
(Berlin, 1936), 21-22; C.L. Babcock, "Dio and Plutaich onjthe Damnatio of
Antony," CPh 57 (1962), 30-32; Huzar Antony 228.1
Dio's notice that Antony's birthday, 14 January, was declared a baneful day
(19.3: f|upav...uaap<xv) is corroborated by die Fasti Verulani (///. 13.2.159,
362, 397): [V]itiosus ex (senatus) c(onsulto). Ant(oni) natal(is).
There are numerous portraits of Cleopatra, but as for Antony, while his
image appears on many coins, surviving portrait busts are relatively few,
perhaps six in all (as well as two or three gems). See M. Borda, "Antonio (M.
Antonius)," in Enciclopedia dell'arte antica 1 (1958), 445-446; OJ. Brendel,
"The Iconography of Marc Antony," in Hommages Albert Grenier 1
(Bruxelles, 1962), 359-367; J.M.C. Toynbee, Roman Historical Portraits
(Ithaca, 1978), 41-46, 86-88; H. Kyrieleis, "Ein Bildnis des Marcus Antonius,"
AA (1976), 85-90; S. Walker and A. Burnett, "A Head of Mark Antony?," in
148 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

Augustus: Handlist of the Exhibition and Supplementary Studies (London,

1981), 37-40.

1 9 . 6 T h e Importance of 1 August in Octavian's Career.

Alexandria fell to Octavian on 6 Mesore (= 1 August) 30 B.C., and the suicide of
Antony occurred on the same day, which the Senate decreed be celebrated as a
holiday (feriae): see, e.g., CILl2 p323 and 244 = lit. 13.2.191 (Fasti
Amiternini): feriae ex s(enatus) c(onsulto) q(uod) e(o) d(ie) imp. Caesar divif.
rem public(am) tristissim[o] periculo libera(vi)t; Oros. 6.19.16; Macr. Sat.
1.12.35; Eus. Chron. (ed. Schoene, 2.140); Censorinus De die natali 21.9-10.
The Senate from its collective viewpoint may have desired to honour
Octavian's taking of power OcptTiai) in Egypt on behalf of Rome and his
expansion of the empire. Althoughfrom a Roman perspectiveOctavian dilk
not assume a monarchical position in the new province, where his provincial
subjects were concerned he desired to make plain his own succession to the
kingship of Egypt. The age-old, traditional regnal year there began on the first
day of the Egyptian New Year, 1 Thoth (= 29 August), and Octavian conformed
to this to begin his role as "pharaoh." Thus the first regnal year of Octavian in
Egypt was from 29 August of 30 to 28 August of 29. (There were similar
adjustments in Macedonia and Syria.) There was sporadic dating in Egypt by the
Kprnai Kacrapo THOU 8eo, but dating by the Augustan era was abandoned
after Augustus' reign. See U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus gypten und
Nubien (Leipzig & Berlin, 1899), 1.786-788; Idem, "Eine alexandrinische Aera
Octavians," Hermes 30 (1895), 151-153; Idem, "Octavian after the Fall of
Alexandria," JRS 27 (1937), 138-144; J. Bingen, "Le Sammelbuch I 5244 et
l're augustenne d'Egypte," CE 39 (1964), 174-176; P. Bureth, Les titulatures
impriales dans les papyrus, les ostraca, et les inscriptions a"Egypte (30 a.C-
284 p.C.) (Bruxelles, 1964), 21-25; T.C. Skeat, "The Last Days of Cleopatra. A
Chronological Problem," JRS 43 (1953), 98-100; C. Balconi, "Documenti greci
e latini d'Egitto di et augustea," Aegyptus 56 (1976), 213; T.C. Skeat, "The
Augustan Era in Egypt: A Note on P.Oxy. xii, 1453," ZPE 53 (1983), 241-244;
Geraci Genesi 163-176. For examples of the numerous hieroglyphic
inscriptions and royal cartouches of Augustus in Egypt, see J.G. Milne, A
History of Egypt under Roman Rule, 3rd ed. (London, 1924), 2-12; R. Mond
and O.H. Myers, The Bucheum (London, 1934), 2.11-15, 32 (where, e.g., we
find him addressed as "the mighty one Jbeloved of Osiris, Buchis, Great God,
Lord of the House of Atum," and as "King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Lord of
the Two Lands." On the portraiture of Augustus in general, see S. Walker and
A. Burnett, The Image of Augustus (London, 1981), 18-27. A portrait head
from Karnak (now in Cairo) has been identified by V.M. Strocka as Octavian,
 19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN (30-29 B.C.) 149
set up before 29 ("Augustus als Pharao," in Eikones: Studien zum griechischen
und rmischen Bildnis {Bern, 1980], 177-180).
On the importance of 1 August in Augustus' own career, and the holidays
of Victoria and the Lares Compitales, see J. Gag, Res gestae divi Augusti, rev.
ed. (Paris, 1977), 175-176, 222, ,228-230. The communis opinio since
Mommsen is that 1 August 2 B.C. was the date of the dedication of the Temple
of Mars Ultor in the Forum of Augustus. But C.J. Simpson ("The Date of the
Dedication of the Temple of Mars Ultor," JRS 67 [1977], 91-94) has definitively
shown that 12 May 2 B.C. was the dedication date. On 1 August as dies
imperii, see W.F. Snyder, "Public Anniversaries in the Roman Empire," YCIS
7 (1940), 231-232.
The month Sextilis (renamed August) had a special importance in the career
of Octavian/Augustus: besides the conquest of Egypt, it saw, for example, his
entry into his first consulship and the celebration of his triple triumph. See
Macr. Sat. 1.12.35; F. Guizzi, II principato tra "res publica" e potere dssoluto
(Napoli, 1974), 89.

19.6-7 pxT|v T % xapi8|rrjoea>: "beginning of the reckoning." This

murky passage teems with difficulties. Does Dio mean a new era for Egypt or
Rome or for both? Viewed in the light of Dio's purposes and methods, and his
mention of this in the context of domestic honours, it appears more likely that
he means also a new era for Rome (cf. CAH 10.285 nl; J. Gag, Res gestae divi
Augusti, rev. ed. [Paris, 1977], 157 n2). Octavian obviously rejected this
honour.
Ti|v...o'D0iav tf|v TV 5r|upx<Dv: Dio's reference to 1 August
as the proposed start of Octavian's regnal years was instinctively associated by
him with contemporary practice in the third century. Emperots of his time held
the tribunicia potestas for life, and they reckoned their regaal years officially by
the number of years since they began to hold this power. For Augustus mis
numbering of imperial years by the tribunicia potestas began only in 23 (see
53.32.5). If Octavian was offered the tribunician power for life in 30, as Dio
here asserts, he declined it (cf. 51.20.4 on his rejection of some of the honours
and powers voted him in 30/29). It was not until he stepped down from the
consulship in mid-23 that a major constitutional readjustment took place: his
tribunicia potestas, held for life, became the summi fastigii vocabulum (Tac.
Ann. 3.56.2), pars maxima regalis imperii (SHA Tac. 1.5).
See Appendix 13, "The Tribunician Power of Augustus (51,19.6-7),"
to eicioeouivoic aUTv K.T.A..: "that he should protect those
who call upon him for aid, both within the pomerium and outside up to one
milea right that none of the tribunes possessedand should give judgement
150 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
on appeals, and should cast a sort of Athena's vote in all the courts." We may
accept Dio's report of the grant of ius auxilii to Octavian extending to the first
milestone beyond the pomerium. This transferred to him an aspect of the power
of the tribunes to review and reverse administrative acts of other magistrates (cf.
Tac. Ann. 1.2.1: consulem se ferens et ad tuendam plebem tribunicio iure
contentum, "parading as consul and as content with the tribunician power to
protect the plebs"). Dio may not be citing the decree of the Senate verbatim, but
adding his own comments on die basis of analogy with the powers of tribunes.
Here his formulation merely states that in the decree of the Senate Octavian's ius
auxilii was territorially delimited in the-usual manner (cf. RE 22.2285 =
Princeps [Wickert]).
Regarding Dio's equating of one Roman mile with 7.5 stades (also at
54.6.6)a relationship that had become general in the Roman empiresee>Jso
52.21.2, where he equates 750 stades with 100 miles; F. Hultsch, Griechische
und rmische Metrologie, 2nd ed. (Berlin, 1882), 570-571; A.W. Lintott, "Dio's
'Eighth Half-stade'," CR 21 (1971), 5-6.
Dio's interpellation of 8 uriSevi xv riuapxowTov 2jf)v is troublesome
(cf. the similar language, B UTIEVI fjv, in reference to Caesar in 48 B.C.:
42.20.3). If we read his words as referring to Octavian's ius auxilii, it is a
manifest error (cf. Mommsen StR 1.69-70), for the ius auxilii of tribunes as
well as of consuls did under the Republic extend to the first milestone. Dio may
here be reflecting the decline in the power of the tribunes in the second and third
centuries A.D. Pliny the Younger (Ep. 1.23.1) called the tribunate inanem
umbram et sine honore nomen, "an empty shadow and a title without
distinction." See G. Niccolini, // tribunato delta plebe (Milano, 1932), 171-180;
Hammond Monarchy 294-295. Does Dio intend to say here that, when Octavian
received ius auxilii up to the first milestone, the tribunes' powers were
accordingly restricted within the pomerium? We may resolve the difficulty by
taking this clause as explained by what follows (as Kelly Princeps 18 suggests).
This is attractive because tribunes did not have appellate jurisdiction as Octavian
did from this time, if we accept Dio's phrase eiacA.T|xov...SiKeiv, "the right
to try on appeals."
The nature of Octavian's auxilium and appellate cognitio at this time is
uncertain. There are two possibilities: he was th final court of appeal, or an
alternate court with direct primary jurisdiction. His position was unprecedented,
and exact Republican parallels are not to be expected (see P. Garnsey, 'The Lex
Julia and Appeal under the Empire," JRS 56 [1966], 185-187). It is not likely
mat Octavian was granted the right to hear appeals from quaestiones perpetuae
(standing courts), or from the quasi-judicial competence of die Senate. Does Dio
mean (as A.H.M. Jones proposed in "I Appeal unto Caesar," Studies in Roman
 19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN (30-29 B.C.) 151
Government and Law [New York, 1960], 54) that provocatio ad principem in
capital cases involving citizens was substituted for provocatio ad populum!
There is no reason to think that Dio intends that Octavian was granted appellatio
in civil cases. Is he attempting to retroject to 30 B.C. as precedent the direct
intervention of the emperor in criminal trials in the second and third centuries?
Cf. Bleicken Senatsgerichtl2A-l3l. Millar, however, holds that Augustus
exercised jurisdiction, both on appeal and as court of first instance, in the
provinces as well as Rome and Italy ('Triumvirate and Rrincipate," JRS 63
[1973], 61; less categorical in Emperor 507-516). On the appellate jurisdiction
of Augustus, see also F. Guizzi, Ilprincipato tra "res publica" e potere assoluto
(Napoli, 1974), 111 n77, 174.
YTlpov...&0Jcep 'AOTTVOC: "a sort of Athena's vote." Dio does not
intend this to be understood as a constitutional power, he inserted the phrase as a
proverbial statement connoting the exercise of mercy. Octavian, however (Dio
intends to say), did receive some form of appellate jurisdiction. See Appendix
14, "The 'Vote of Athena' (51.19.7)."
bxp xeivou jioico exeoai: "to pray similarly on1 his behalf."
Prayers of priestly groups to Roman gods on behalf of Octavian were for his
health and prosperity; similar prayers for him were included, e.g., by Jewish
priests at the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, and in Jewish synagogues in the
empire. Libations at banquets, however, were acts of cult directed to Octavian's
genius. Cf. Hor. Carm. 4.5.31-36; CIL 4.5285; Taylor Divinity 151-153, 181-
183; Smallwood Jews 147-148, 292. Dio's statement here under 30 B.C. is our
first reference to the compromise in Rome, Italy, and the western provinces with
the urge for overt worship of Octavian/Augustus. For his worship in the East,
see51.20.6-8n.

20.1 t6xe...towT' yv&afh\: "these measures wjere vo^ed at this time."

It is ambiguous whether Tavca here includes the measures referred to by xaxa
in 51.19.3, or refers only to the additional measures given in 51.19.5-7; it may
merely be a loose, transitional phrase. Dio's characteristic method is apparent:
he describes only a selection of the honours granted to Octavian, especially those
that were new or unique (cf. Andersen Dio 13-14). The decrees given in chapters
19 and 20 by Dio were issued at various times: after Actium, after the fall of
Alexandria and Antony's death, and in 29. But he groups them all together wim
little regard to chronology, and deals with implementation later (cf. 51.20.4n).
See Fadinger Begrndung 305-306.
pKOi eeauDoavxo: On the oath (iusiurandum) taken on 1
January to approve the acts of Octavian, compare the oath of all the magistrates
in 45 to do nothing contrary to the acts of Caesar as dictator (App. BC 2.106);
152 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

also the similar oath to the triumvirs in 42 (Dio 47.18.3). Under the Principate
the oath was taken annually on 1 January to uphold the acts of the princeps
(53.28.1; 57.8.4-8). In Dio's time (cf. 47.18.3), the oath was taken by
magistrates and senators to uphold the acts of all previous emperors (except
those disgraced) and the acts past and future of the reigning princeps. Cf.
Mommsen StR 1.621-622; RE 10.1257 = Iusiurandum (Steinwenter).
Ta xepl tnv ndpoov yp]L\una: Dio's curtailed notice here is
apparently a reference to a communication by Octavian to the Senate announcing
some diplomatic successes with King Phraates of Parthia. Cf. 51.18.2-3n.
tot) tt|AV0U: Dio is vague here. Cf. RG 10.1: nomen meum senatus
consulto inclusum est in saliare carmen [the Greek reads iSuvou], "My name
was, by decree of the Senate, included in the Salian hymn."
X
20.2 puX,T|v 'IovXiav: Octavian did not accept the honour of having one
of the thirty-five tribes renamed tribus Iulia. A similar honour had been voted
for Julius Caesar (44.5.2), but apparently was never implemented. Cf.
Weinstock Julius 158-162. The naming of tribes after rulers was an Athenian
practice in the Hellenistic period: see M. Hammond, "Hellenistic Influences on
the Structure of the Augustan Principate," MAAR 17 (1940), 6.
itepixopqrpoi iuaxioi: I.e., the purple-bordered toga praetexta .

20.3 TT|V *6Xiv oX9r|: On the sacral-political character of the day of

adventus of the princeps in Rome, see Millar Emperor 31-32.
lepa: Dio's statement that Octavian was granted unrestricted power
to name priests is exaggerated and characteristically vague. Dio was, of course,
thinking of circumstances in the third century (cf. Hammond Monarchy 79-82).
The priesthoods involved were: XVviri Sacris Faciundis, Pontifices, Augures,
Vllviri Epulones; Salii, Fratres Arvales, Sodales Titii, and Fetiales. We do not
have statistics for membership in these priestly colleges during the Augustan
age, though at the Ludi Saeculares of 17 B.C., the college of XVviri Sacris
Faciundis had at least twenty-one members. See M.W. Hoffman-Lewis, The
Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians, Papers and Monographs of
the American Academy in Rome 16 (Rome, 1955), 12, 89.

20.4 t a jiv Xka xW)v paxecov: The honour of being met by the
entire populace of Rome was mentioned also previously, at 51.19.2. Thus
Octavian accepted (Dio says) most of the honours and powers bestowed upon
him that were mentioned in sections 19.1-20.4.
xftXet x too 'Iavr: On the closing of the double-doored arched
gates of Janus Geminus on the north side of the Forum, cf. RG 13.1: lanum
 19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN (30-29 B.C.) 153

Quirinum, quern clausuni esse maiores nostri voluerunt cum per totum
imperium populi Romani terra marique esset parla victoriis pax, cum priusquam
nascerer a condita urbe bis omnino clausum fuisse prodatur memoriae, ter me
principe senatus claudendum esse censuit, "Our ancestors desired Janus Quirinus
to be closed when peace was secured by victories throughout die entire empire of
die Roman people on bom land and sea; though before I was bom it was recorded
that, from the time of the founding of the city, the shrine was closed altogether
twice, with me as princeps the Senate decreed three times that it be closed." The
first of the three closings under Augustus took place on 11 January 29 (Ej2
p4S), during Octavian's absence in the East. This ritual was a revival of an
ancient ceremony, long in disuse. Janus was not worshipped in human form;
the statue of "Janus pater" said by Pliny (HN 36.28) to have been brought from
Egypt by Augustus and dedicated in Janus' shrine was probably a figure of
Hermes. On the closing of the gates of Janus at this time, see e.g. Verg. Aen.
1.293-296; 7.607-615; Hor. Sat. 1.4.60-61; Livy 1.19.2-3;! Suet. Aug. 22. On
the Arch of Janus and the rite, see B.R. Burchett, Janus in Roman \Life and Cult
(Menasha, 1918), 27, 37-39; L.A. Holland, Janus and the Bridge, Papers and
Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 21 (Rome, 1961), 64-66, 132;
Nash Dictionary 1.502-503; R. Syme, "Problems about Janus," AJPh 100
(1979), 188-212.
t oicbviouct t o Ttjc 'Yfieia: The augurium salutis populi,
another ancient rite, about which little is known, was revived by Octavian in 29
(Suet. Aug. 31.4; CIL 6.36841 = ILS 9337). It was an augural rite connected
with complete cessation of war among the Romans. Last performed in 63 after a
long interval (37.24.1-3), this rite was observed in theory every year when mere
existed no war or military preparations among the Romans. In the rite it was
inquired of the gods whether it was fas to ask them for; prosperity for the Roman
people. See K. Latte, Rmische Religionsgeshichte], Handbuch der
Altertumswissenschaft 5.4 (Mnchen, I960), 140,298;.

20.5 v BxXoi &u: Dio suggests that the closing of Janus Quirinus in
January of 29 was only symbolical, for later that year there occurred the military
operations of Statilius Taurus and Nonius Gallus, as well as those of C.
Carrinas (see below, 51.21.6n) and of M. Crassus (see on 51.23.2-27.3). T.
Statilius Taurus, a novus homo and, like Agrippa, one of the leading .marshals
of Octavian (cf. Vell. Pat. 2.127.1: magnis adiutoribus ad gubernandam
fortunam suam), was hailed Imperator III for his victories in northern Spain (cf.
CIL 2.3556 = ILS 893). This was apparently his last military campaign; later
these very regions required the active intervention of Augustus and Agrippa from
26 to 19. See RE 3A.2199-2203 = Statilius 34 (Nagl). M. Nonius Gallus (RE
154 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
17.878-879 = Nonius 33 [Groag]) was hailed Imperator (CIL 9.2642 = ILS 895)
though he was the legatus of C. Carrinas, proconsul of Gallia Comata (PIR 2 C
447), for his operations against the revolt of the Celtic-German Treveri in the
Moselle Valley. These were aided by Germans from the right bank of the Rhine
(Dio idiosyncratically calls them. Celts, as regularly: cf., e.g., 38.40.7; 39.49.1-
2). See A. Schulten, Los Cntabros y Astures y su guerra con Roma (Madrid,
1943), 133; F. Wattenberg, La region vaccea>B^bliotheca praehistorica Hispana
2 (Madrid, 1959), 43-45.

20.6-8 teuxvn.: Worship of the joint cult of the goddess Roma and Caesar
as Divus Julius, whom Dio here calls heros, was authorized by Octavian at
Ephesus and Nicaea for Roman citizens resident in the East. But the cult of Dea
Roma and Augustus also spread rapidly in the East, especially among Hellene^
Ephesus was made cult centre because it was the residence of the proconsul of
the province of Asia, and Dio singles out Nicaea in Bithynia because it was his
birthplace; both cities had large concentrations of Romans. The cult of
Augustus in Egypt began in 30, when he effectively succeeded to the rule of the
Ptolemies as pharaoh (see, e.g., Taylor Divinity 142-145). Moreover, he
renounced Antony's religious ideas, converting the Temple of Antony built by
Cleopatra in Alexandria into a shrine of himself (with Roma?). Elsewhere in the
East, official permission was granted Greeks and other provincials to set up
temples jointly to Dea Roma and Augustus (e.g., Suet. Aug. 52; Tac. Ann.
4.37.3; cf. Dio 59.28.1 ): for example, at Pergamum, the seat of the League of
Greek cities of Asia, and at Nicomedia, of the League of Bithynia. Dio
mentions only Augustus in this cult, not Roma, though both temples were
dedicated to Roma and Augustus; this reflects the conception in the East that
Augustus was the principal figure in the cult. For evidence of the numerous
Temples of Dea Roma and Augustus, see Taylor Divinity 270-277; for Herod's
Temples of Roma and Augustus in Judaea, in the Greek cities of Sebaste and
Caesarea, see Smallwood Jews 77-79; and on the Romaia Sebasta Games at
Pergamum, C. Fayer, // culto della Dea Roma (Pescara, 1976), 113-127. Dio
deals here only with the officially authorized cult centres of Augustus. There
was, indeed, no bar anywhere to private worship of him as god or hero, even
publicly by cities and peoples of the empire. See Taylor Divinity 234-238; C.
Habicht, "Die augusteische Zeit und das erste Jahrhundert nach Christi Geburt,"
in Le culte des souverains dans l'empire romain, Entretiens sur l'antiquit
classique 19 (Vandoeuvres-Genve, 1972), 76-85; M.P. Charlesworth, "The
Refusal of Divine Honours, An Augustan Formula," PBSR 15 (1939), 1-10;
Cerfaux & Tondriau Culte 316-329; U. Knoche, "Die augusteische Ausprgung
der Dea Roma/' Gymnasium 59 (1952), 324-329; R. Melior, 0EA PQMH.
 19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN (30-29 B.C.) 155

The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the Greek World (Gttingen, 1975), 79-
80; D. Fishyick, "Augustus deus and deus Augustus," in Hommages M. J.
Vermaseren (Leiden, 1978), 375-380; Fayer, op. cit. 15-18, 107-108; S.R.F.
Price, Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge,
1984), 53-57.

20.8 v...T<p &oxet: On the official cult of the emperor in Rome, Italy,
and the West, where it was restricted to the worship of his genius, see Taylor
Divinity 181-204. On me deification of Augustus in 14 and on shrines of Divus
Augustus, see 56.46.1-4; Taylor Divinity 224-238.

20.9 yva xov iepov: On "sacred" games, see 51.1.2n.

| ....
21.1-2 O&ecXpio Ilotvro: Octavian entered Rome apparently in the
middle of 29. PotituS Valerius Messalla was consul suffectus (together with
Octavian as eos. V), possibly beginning 1 July (Groagj in PIR^- A 961),
succeeding the consul Ordinarius Sextus Appuleius (whom Dio balls merely
Sextus), nephew of Octavian, son.of Octavia Maior, his half-sister. Cf. lit.
13.1.171, 283, 512. For PotituS Valerius Messalla as consul, see CIL 6.37075
= ILS 8964; on the family and cursus honorum of this member of an old
patrician family, see A.E. Gordon, PotituS Valerius Messalla Consul Suffect 29
B.C., University of California Publications in Classical Archaeology 3.2
(Berkeley, 1954), 31-64; R. Syme, JRS 45 (1955), 155-160 (= Papers 1.260-
270). T -,

21.2 ufjxoo xp6tepov: "never before." Cf. Augustus' own emphases on

the unprecedented in his principate, in RG 10.2: numauam..tante id tempus;
\1.\-.adhoc tempus netninipraeter me; cf. 26.4 and 31 jl. \

21.3 'Aypixxav: The sea-blue admiral's flag awarded to Agrippa in

commemoration of Actium is unique in antiquity. For other honours and
benefactions bestowed upon Agrippa at this tirne but left unstated by Dio
patrician status, Antony's residence on the Palatine, an estate in Egypt,
membership in the priestly college of XVviri Sacris Faciundissee Reinhold
Agrippa 61-62; Roddaz Agrippa 185-187.
tip t e OTJuqp: Cf. RG 15.1: Plebei Romanae...nomine meo HS
quadringenos ex bellorum manibiis consul quintum dedi; 15.3: et colonis.
militum meorum consul quintum ex manibiis viritim millia nummorum singula
dedi (to about 120,000 veterans). On the congiaria of Augustus, paid out of his
private fortune, see D. van Berchem, Les distributions de bl et d'argent la
156 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

plbe romaine sous l'Empire (Genve, 1939), 127-130, 142-144. Since

Augustus states that his congiaria to the Roman citizens were never given to
fewer than 250,000 men, the total expended for these two purposes in 29 was at
least 220 million sesterces. On the gift of 400 sesterces each to children in the '
name of Marcellus, cf. Suet. Aug. 41.2; Oxyrhynchus Papyri 40 (1972), 13-14;
on Marcellus, see 53.27.5, 28.3, 30.4-6.

21.4 TO xpwoiov to TO oreqx&voi: "Crown gold" (aurum coronarium)

was a species of taxation in the form of presents to rulers and generals,
especially on the occasion of triumphs (RE 2.2552-2553 = Aurum Coronarium
[Kubitschek]; Millar Emperor 140-141). Cf. RG 21.3: Auri coronari pondo
triginta et quinque millia municipiis et colonis Italiae conferentibus ad
triumphos meos quintum consul remisi. Since a pondus was valued at 4B0
sesterces, in 29 Octavian remitted to the municipalities and colonies of Italy
about 147 million sesterces.

21.5 TO n.f|8o Tv %H\\L6L<Q\: Dio's singling out the effects of

increased circulation of money in 29rise in prices, drop in interest rates
would seem to be in response to monetary manipulation and inflationary
pressures of his own times (cf. CAH 12.220-221, 262, 724-725). Could Dio
have known with precision that interest rates in Rome dropped from 12% (ci
Spaxufj = one denarius per 100, per month) to 4%? Suetonius (Aug. 41.1)
observes merely that the influx of wealth from the triumph over Egypt reduced
interest rates and raised the value of real estate: invecta urbi Alexandrino
triumpho regia gaza tantam copiam nummariae rei effecit. The assurance of the
food supply of Italy with regular shipments of African and Egyptian wheat and
the restoration of confidence in trade, business, and private property were also
important factors. <2f. F. Oertel in CAH 10.382-387, 423-424.

21.5-9 m p t a o e : On Octavian's triple triumph, see RG 4.1: tris egi

curulis triumphos; Livy Per. 133: trs triumphos egit; cf. Verg. Aen. 8.714-
715, Dio's statement that on the first day (13 August) he celebrated a triumph
over Pannonians, Dalmatians, Iapodes (an Illyrian people), and over
neighbouring tribes (for the campaign, see 49.34.2-38.4), as well as some
Germans and Gauls, is not entirely trustworthy with regard to the latter two
peoples. The various Fasti are, however, not especially helpful in this matter:
the Fasti Triumphales Barberiniani (lit. 13.1.345) read Imp. Caesar de
Delma[t]is eid. Sept. triumph(avit), palmam dedit. Imp. Caesar ex A[egy]pto
XIIX k. Sept. triump<h>avit. (Mention of Actium is omitted.) In the Fasti
Triumphales Capitolini there is a lacuna in the text of about sixteen lines, where
 19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN (30-29 B.C.) 157
mention of the triple triumph might be expected. Suetonius (Aug. 22) says:
Curulis triumphos trs egit, Delmaticum, Actiacum, Alexandrinum continuo
triduo omnes. Livy (Per. 131) reports that Octavian subdued the Iapodes,
Dalmatians, and Pannonians.
Dio's comment that Octavian also celebrated victories over some Germanic
and Gallic tribes is based on his view that C. Carrinas was Octavian's legatus.
But Carrinas, a loyal adherent of Julius Caesar and Octavian, was proconsul of
Gallia Comata ea 30-29, and in 28 celebrated a triumph himself (as Dio reports,
51.21.6). Cf. Fasti Triumphales Barberiniani (lit. 13.1.345, 570): [C.
Carr]inasex [G]al[l\is prid. eid. /[/.] triumph(avit), palmam dedit (cf. PIR^C
447).
Modem scholarship has concluded mat Octavian's punitive conquests in the
western Balkans between 35 and 33 were exaggerated and of restricted scope: the
purpose of the operations was to secure a land bridge to the East as well as to
protect Italy on the northeastern flank. The principal sources are App. ///. 14-28
and Dio 49.34-38,43.8, both ultimately deriving from Augustus' dwn memoirs.
It is noteworthy that the triumph offered to Octavian for his earlier victories in
Illyria was deferred until 29, that contemporaries ignored these campaigns, and
that even the recovery of the military standards lost there by Gabinius (App. ///.
28) was passed over. There were no images on coins, no glorification in poems,
as later happened when the standards last in Parthia were recovered (54.8.1-3).
Dio may have had a personal interest in mentioning Pannonia and Dalmatia here:
he knew a great deal about them because he had been governor of these
provinces. See R. Syme, "Augustus and the South Slav Lands," Danubian
Papers (Bucharest, 1971), 13-39 (= Revue internationale des tudes balkaniques 3
[1937], 33ff.); Wilkes Dalmatia 46-77; Schmitthenner Historia 7 (1958), 189-
236 (with complete bibliography to that date). - '
Dio says little about the triumphs for the victories at Actium (14 August)
and over Egypt (15 August), "the most memorable off all triimiphs" (R. Payne,
The Roman Triumph [London, 1962], 148).
In RG 4.3 Augustus wrote: In triumphis meis ducti sunt ante currum
meum reges et regum liberi novem. Among the nine captives were, besides
Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene (see 51.15.5-7n), Adiatorix and his wife
and children (he was condemned to death), and Alexander of Emesa, who was
executed (cf. ANRW 2.8.210-211). The fellow consul mentioned was PotituS
Valerius Messalla.
Dio stresses an innovation in the order of the processions, which was of
age-oldritualisticcharacter and bound by traditional rules of procedure (see DS
5.488-491 = Triumphus [Cagnat]). The usual order was for the magistrates and
the senators who had taken part in the victory to escort the triumphator into the
158 CX)MMENTARYONBOOK51
city, the former walking before, the latter behind, the currus triumphalis. This
time even the magistrates followed Octavian. The deference to Octavian is
patent.

22.1-2 TO XOXKISIKV: Cf. RG 19.1-2: Curiam et continens ei

Chalcidicum.. feci. Dio calls the Chalcidicum a shrine of Minerva. Possibly it
was that in his own day: Talbert (Senate 115) suggests that it may have been
dedicated to Minerva by Domitian, for he was devoted to the goddess. When it
was dedicated by Octavian, it was a portico connected with the Curia Julia in the
Forum (on which, cf. 44.5.1-2; 47.19.1; Gell, i 4.7.7). See Nash Dictionary
1.230-231, 301-303; RE 3.2039-2042 = Chalcidicum (Mau). On the Altar of
Victory, dedicated 28 August 29 B.C., see Fasti Maffeiani (lit. 13.2.79 = EJ2^
p51 ): h(oc) d(ie) ara Victoriae in curia dedic(ata) est. On the statue of Victory in
the Curia, the Nike statue of Tarentum brought to Rome, see Fadinger
Begrndung 294; P. Zanker, Forum Romanum: Die Neugestaltung durch
Augustus (Tbingen, 1972), 8-9. It was still to be seen in Dio's time (TO Kal
vvv ov), and is depicted on coins of Rome and Caesarea in Mauretania (M.J.
Price and B.L. Trell, Coins and Their Cities. Architecture on the Ancient Coins
of Greece, Rome, and Palestine [Detroit, 1977], 71-74).

22.2-3 T<p xov 'IovXiov f|p$q>: The Temple of Divus Julius, built by
Octavian, was dedicated on 18 August 29 (see lit. 13.2.497 = EJ2 p50; Nash
Dictionary 1.512-514). In front of the temple was an altar on the spot where
Caesar's body had been cremated, and the Rostra Julia, a new speakers' platform
decorated with beaks of ships taken at Actium. Cf. RG 21.2: Dona ex manibiis
in Capitolio et in aede divi Iuli...consacravi. The golden statue of Cleopatra
mentioned here had been placed in the Temple of Venus Genetrix by Julius
Caesar (App. BC 2.102), and Dio relishes the irony. With pcVtm Dio seems to
reveal personal knowledge of the statue, which was still visible in the temple in
Appian's day.

22.4 Tpoiov [&Y<DVCC]: On the equestrian sport called Troiae lusus, see,
e.g., Verg. Aen. 5.553-603 (at the funeral games of Anchises); Dio 43.23.6 (at
the triumph of Caesar in 46); Suet. Aug. 43.2; cf. RE 13.2059-2067 = Lusus
Troiae (Schneider). In view of the familial connection of the Julians with the
legend of the Trojan hero Aeneas, the event had propaganda value for Octavian in
Rome at this time.
KiitvTo...CKiTXXio ouXevtqc: Since 38, senators had been
forbidden by enactment to fight as gladiators (48.43.3), and one may doubt that
Octavian permitted a senator to fight in the arena (cf. Suet. Aug. 43.3). For
 19.1-23.1: THE TRIUMPH OF OCTAVIAN (30-29 B.C.) 159
restrictions on public performances by members of die senatorial order, in both
theatrical events and gladiatorial combats, as being contra dignitatem ordinis and
as diminishing the maiestatem senatus, see B. Levick, "The Senatus Consultum
from Larinum," JRS 73 (1983), 97-115 (a decree of A.D. 19). This Q. Vitellius
was probably a brother of P. Vitellius, the procurator of Augustus, father of four
senators, and grandfather of the future emperor Vitellius (so Hanslik in RE
Supp. 9.1741 = Vitellius 7f), rather than the Q. Vitellius who was the son of
the procurator and was quaestor of Augustus (RE loc. cit, Vitellius 7g). Dio
may be recording characteristic backstairs gossip about imperial figures and their
ancestors. He elsewhere reports, as an aberration, that under Nero very famous
persons fought as gladiators (61.17.3-5).
! I

22.5 pivKepm KJCO t e xotduio: Dio errs here in stating that the
rhinoceros and hippopotamus were seen for the first time; in Rome in 29. M.
Aemilius Scaurus had been the first to exhibit a hippopotamus, in his
spectacular aedileship of 58 (Pliny HN 8.%; Amm. 22.15.24); and Pompey was
the first to exhibit a rhinoceros (Pliny HN 8.71). For a rhinoceros exhibited in
the Saepta by Augustus, cf. Suet. Aug. 43.4. Though the one-horned rhinoceros
was an Indian species, these two exotic animals mentioned here by Dio may
have come from the royal zoo of the Ptolemies in Alexandria. See G. Jennison,
Animals for Show and Pleasure in. Ancient Rome (Manchester, 1937), 30, 34-
35,41, 50, 66; Friedlnder Sittengeschichte 4.271.

22.6-8 AOKO: Dio's digression on the Dacians, occasioned by the mention

of Dacian and Suebian captives in gladiatorial combats at these games, seems
displaced from its proper context in Dio's narrative of Crassus' war against the
Thracians and Getae, below. Rhodope (modem Bulgarian Rodopi) is the great
mountain range in Thrace. The Moesians (in modem) Seifeiajand Bulgaria) are
little heard of before 29 B.C.; see Papazoglu 7Wh?j 39-414. \

22.9 eiaTid6n.oav: Cary mistranslates as "gave banquets." The Greek

means "were entertained," though even Dio did not know me form this took.

23.1 8oTpov...K'OviiyeTiic6v: The amphitheatre built in the Campus

Martius by Statilius Taurus ex manibiis (cf. Tac. Ann. 3.72.1) was dedicated the
year before, in 30 (cf. Suet. Aug. 29.5; Dio 59.10.5). The curious grant of
power to Statilius Taurus to select one of the praetors annually (perhaps for-a
specific number of years) isif Dio's account is trustworthyin keeping with
the constitutional irregularities of the triumviral period, when appointment by
patronage was common. See R. Frei-Stolba, Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in
160 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51
der rmischen Kaiserzeit (Zrich, 1967), 84-85; F. Millar, "Triumvirate and
Principale," JRS 63 (1973), 52-53.

23.2-27.3: CRASSUS' CAMPAIGNS IN THE BALKANS (cf. Map 5)

Dio's extended narrative of the campaigns of Marcus Crassus is given at this

point, but he is murky about the exact chronology, stating only that they took
place Kax...-toi) ato TOTOU XPV0V. (51.23.2). He appears to have
compressed under the year 29 operations that extended over two calendar years,
including one winter. Whether the campaigns took place in 30-29 or 29-28 Dio
leaves in doubt (see Manuwald Dio 80-81). Crassus was consul Ordinarius wWi
Octavian in 30, and was followed by three suffecti; so he might well have
become governor of Macedonia in the same year.
Dio's treatment of this war in the region north of Macedonia as far as the
Danube River contains information not duplicated elsewhere; in many details it
is unique. The ethnography and geography in Crassus' campaigns (together with
excellent maps) are admirably provided in Papazoglu Tribes 414-428; cf. M.
Oppermann, "Der Ostbalkanraum in augusteischer Zeit," Klio 67 (1985), 111-
117. Two bizarre incidents of the war are preserved by Florus (2.26: Bellum
Moesicum): before the battle the Moesians killed a horse in the presence of their
massed troops and vowed to sacrifice to their gods the entrails of the Roman
leaders; and a centurion, Comidius by name, terrified the barbarian Moesians
with a brazier of fire on his head.
Marcus Crassus, grandson of the triumvir Crassus, had shifted allegiance
from Sextus Pompey to Antony, and finally to Octavian. Consul in 30 without
having held the praetorship (cf. 51.4.2-8n), he became proconsul of Macedonia
either that year or the next, and from this vantage point embarked on a campaign
of pacification that tamed the many tribes south of the Danube; he brought under
Roman rule northern Bulgaria and the Dobrudja (Papazoglu Tribes 423), thus
making the central Balkans secure for centuries from the Danube line to the
Aegean, and from Pannonia to the Black Sea. It was apparently a masterful
operation, the most successful frontier war of the time, and must have excited
the envy of Octavian.

23.2 AOKO Koi...BaoTdpvai: jSince Dio thereafter says very little

about Crassus' operations against Dacians, A. Stein (Die Legaten von Moesien,
Dissertationes Pannonicae 1.11 [Budapest, 1940], 10) argues that Dio meant
Getae rather than the Dacians here. But there were Dacian captives in Rome in
29, as Dio himself states (see above, 51.22.6-8n), and Horace (Carm. 3.8.18)
 23.2-27.3: CRASSUS' CAMPAIGNS IN THE BALKANS 161

speaks of the defeat of the Dacian King Cotiso. Cf. Livy Per. 134: Bellum
adversus Basternas et Moesos et alias gentes a M. Crasso [gestumj ...; and RG
31.2: Nostram amicitiam appetiverunt per legatos Bastarnae. The Fasti
Triumphales record Crassus' victory over "Thrace and Getae" (see below,
51.25.2n), but not over Bastarnians and Moesians. Apparently the Getae
included the Moesians at this time; Dio employs "Dacians" and "Getae"
interchangeably (Papazoglu Tribes 417,425). For the downplaying of Crassus'
Dacian operations by Octavian, see A. Mocsy, "Der vertuschte Dakerkrieg des
M. Licinius Crassus," Historia 15 (1966), 511-514.

233-24.4 BaoTOpvai: Marauding Bastarnae were active, with impunity,

on both sides of the lower Danube, but when they crossed the great Balkan range
(the Haemus) and invaded the lands of Rome's client1 king Sitas of the
Dentheletae, an allied Thracian people, Crassus moved, thus having to deal with
Moesians and other warlike tribes in the region. "When...he set out to defend
the blind king of the Dentheletae, Crassus himself could certainly hardly have
imagined that this campaign of his would assume such proportions'' (Papazoglu
Tribes 419).
In Crassus' campaign against the Bastarnae his army crossed the
Bregalnitza River and passed through the land of the Thracian tribes, the Maedi
and Serdi, in a pincers operation to reach the allied Dentheletae, where the
Bastarnae had gone. As a result, the Maedi and Serdi were definitively
subjugated at once by Crassus, and the region was placed under the authority of
the governor of Macedonia. See B. Gerov, Beitrge zur Geschichte der
rmischen Provinzen Moesien und Thrakien (Amsterdam, 1980), 69, 74, 182,
221,440.

233 AapSdvou: Crassus' intervention marks the end of die independence

of the Dardanians and the Triballians; Dio's is the last Historical mention of
them (Papazoglu Tribes 56, 187). Cf. 51.27.3.

23.4 xv xe Auov: I.e., the Haemus Range.

Aev0eA.T)T<bv: A Thracian tribe, south of the Haemus, whose chief
stronghold was Pautalia.

23.5-24.1 JtltKOOV: Crassus' route was through the land of the

Dentheletae on the upper course of the Strymon River, through Segetica and
western Moesia, to the Kedros River. However, the identity of both Segetica
and the Kedros is unknown (Papazoglu Tribes 420-421 ).
162 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

24.4 OKvA.a...xt(ta: Crassus killed King Deldo of the Bastarnae in

personal combat, but he was not granted the right to dedicate his armour in
Rome, in the traditional manner, as spolia opima. This was the custom of
dedicating the armour taken from the body of the enemy leader personally killed
by a Roman general commanding troops suo auspicio (cf. 44.4.2). Dio does not
enter into discussion of die contretemps caused by Octavian's disallowing this
honour to Crassus. The issue was age-old tradition and die nature of Crassus'
imperium. Livy (4.19-20) extracted from his sources a precedent in die case of
Cornelius Cossus, military tribune in 437(?) (cf. Dion. Hal. 12.5.1, where he is
called chiliarchos). To deny Crassus this unique honour, Octavian declared that
he had seen evidence that Cossus was consul at the time: i.e., suo auspicio (Livy
4.20.7: hoc ego..Augustum...se ipsum...legisse audissem), but Livy did not
bother to check Octavian's "evidence," when he might easily have done so in
Rome. Livy, indeed, had his doubts about die matter but, though he hedged*^
bit, he bowed to Augustus' claim, asserting that it "would be sacrilegious" to
refute it. Octavian's "evidence" was indeed worthless, but since Crassus'
imperium was effectively overshadowed by mat of Octavian, he was able to
prevent the honour to Crassus on a technicality. See Last, CAH 7.507-509; D.
Bishop, "Augustus and A. Cornelius Cossus, Cos.," Latomus 7 (1948), 187-
191; Syme Revolution 303, 308; Idem, "Livy and Augustus," HSCPh 64
(1959), 43-46; Idem, "Piso Frugi and Crassus Frugi," JRS 50 (1960), 17; P.G.
Walsh, Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1961), 14-15;
R.M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy Books 1-5 (Oxford, 1965), 71-73, 563-
567; E. Mensching, "Livius, Cossus und Augustus," MH 24 (1967), 12-32; H.
Versnel, Triumphus (Leiden, 1970), 304-313; Papazoglu Tribes 415-416 n83.
On M. Licinius Crassus and his Balkan campaigns, see also Charleswoith,
CAH 10.117-118 (with map); RE 13.270-285 = Licinius 58 (Groag); PIR2 L
186; A. Mcsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia (London, 1974), 23-25.

24.6-7 'PebXov: Roman client kings in mis area, besides King Sitas of the
Dentheletae, were the Getic King Roles and also the prince of the Odrysae.
Roles received me title amicus et socius populi Romani (B. Gerov, Beitrge zur
Geschichte der rmischen Provinzen Moesien und Thrakien [Amsterdam, 1980],
327 n33).

25.2 otTOKpiopo avoua: "He did not, however, receive the title of
Imperator, as some say." Dio errs: Crassus was, indeed, hailed Imperator. E.
Badian ('"Crisis Theories' and me Beginning of me Principale," in Romanitas-
Christianitas, Festschrift Straub [Berlin, 1982], 38-41) is surely correct in
concluding that "Dio's story...that M. Crassus did not adopt the title of
 23.2-27.3: CRASSUS' CAMPAIGNS IN THE BALKANS 163
imperator...must be abandoned." For the evidence, see ILS 8810 (Athens), and
AnnEpigr 1928.44 (Thespiae, Greece), in which he is called autokrator. It is
true that Octavian himself took the appellation Imperator VII at this time. See
CIL 6.873 = ILS 81 (Rome); BMCEmp. 1.105 647-649; T.D. Barnes, "The
Victories of Augustus," JRS 64 (1974), 21-26 (Barnes treats saluutions of
Augustus as Imperator from 25 B.C. on); L. Schumacher, "Die imperatorischen
Akklamationen der Triumvirn und die auspicia des Augustus," Historia 34
(1985), 209-211 (arguing that Imperator VII belongs to the capture of Alexandria
in 30). There was another victory in 29, that of Cornelius Gallus in Egypt (see
51.17.4n), which might have led to the assumption of Imp.' VII by Octavian.
Crassus celebrated his triumph (vncntfipia) on 4 July 27, after which his
name disappears from history. See Fasti Triumphales Capitolini (lit. 13.1.87):
M. Licinius M. f. M. n. Crassus pro. a. DCCXXVI eos. ex Thraeeia et Geteis
IV Non. Iul.

2SA-S TOV 9p$Ka: This Thracian region, with various tribes such as
the Maedi, Serdi, Odrysae, and Bessi, exhibited varieties of Dionysic allegiances
and competition. Crassus' efforts to take advantage of this by transferring, as
punishment, the tribal shrines of the warlike Bessi in the Haemus Range to the
peaceful Odrysae were not a lasting solution. See 54.3.2n on the war of M.
Primus against the Odrysae; 54.34.5-7 on the revolt of the Bessi in 11 B.C.
under their priest Vologaesus. Cf. S.L. Dyson, "Native Revolt Patterns in the
Roman Empire," ANRW 2.3.169-170; CM. Danov, "Die Thraker auf dem
Ostbalkan," ANRW 2.7.1.123-126.

26.1-4 Axxtyv. The Getic king Dapyx is known only from this text. See
Papazoglu Tribes 419,422, 427. For Roles, see above, 51.24.6-7n.
!
26.3 Ketpiv: On this historic cave, see RE 13.279-280 = Licinius 58
(Groag); Papazoglu Tribes 427.

26.5 rvottKLo: Genucla was the stronghold of the Getic King Zyraxes,
who is otherwise unknown.
If Crassus recovered from Genucla the standards lost to the Bastamae by C.
Antonius Hibrida when he was proconsul of Macedonia in 62-60 B.C. (cf.
38.10.3; MRR 2.175-176, 180), this achievement is ignored by Augustus in
RG 29 (cf. Mommsen ad loa).

27.1 'ApTCdriou: The Artacii were a Moesian tribe on the upper course of
the Tundza River (Papazoglu Tribes 423).
164 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 51

27.2-3 Ypda 8 i d ie aXXa tt xov xapaSSotai, K

a i t d t a v6|iata: "I record these matters, including the names, abou
they have been handed down." This important passage about an unnamed sou
(or sources) used by Dio for the campaigns of Crassus reveals Dio's awaren
that conditions and ethnographic names in the region at the time were diffe
from those of the third century. In particular, the "Moesia" of Dio's narra
was not the same as the later province of Moesia, which included the lands of
Dardanians and the former Triballians among many other peoples (Papazo
Tribes 432-434).
 BOOK 52

INTRODUCTION
The Exceptional Nature of Book 52: The Agrippa-Maecenas Debate

!
This book is devoted to the last third of 29 B.C., after the celebration of
the triple triumph in the middle of August up to the end of Octavian's fifth
consulship. In a major deviation from traditional annalistjc .patterns, Dio has
here spread over virtually all of Book 52 the famous debate etweerj Agrippa and
Maecenas before Octavian, on "Whither Rome?" While they are not paragons of
oratory, these celebrated paired speeches of Octavian's most trusted advisors of
the early Principate, contrived though they are, remain invaluable for the light
they cast not only on the beginning of the Principate but especially on Dio's
own political, economic, and social thought, his contemporary concerns and
alarms, as well as his historiographical methods. Though we may not go so far
as to affirm mat the "speeches of Agrippa and Maecenas.. .shed more light on the
nature of the Empire than any other single source,"1 {he interchange is the only
theoretical analysis of Roman government and society from the third century,
and affords as well valuable insights into the mind of a/distinguished senator of
the time of the Severi.2 It is worth emphasizing that ("Dio's political
philosophy was based on class interests and personal eiperienie, not Platonic or
Stoic ideals. He was above all a practical man of the world."3 ,
It was an inspiration on Dio's part to position the speeches where he did.
For, while the debate reflects the political crisis of the Severan Age and the
problems of governance and society faced by the highest level of the Roman
hierarchy in Dio's generation, by his insertion of the debate at the momentous
transition from Republic to Principate Dio was signalling a parallel to the great

1
CG. Starr, "The Perfect Democracy of the Roman Empire," AHR 58 (1952),
12.
2
Millar Study 83.
3
B. Forte, Rome and the Romans as the Greeks Saw Them, Papers and
Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 24 (Rome, 1972), 350.
166 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

transformation taking place in his own time, from his idealized Antonine
monarchy to the Severan Age.4
Structurally, there is no doubt that the position of the Agrippa-Maecenas
debate betrays it as an excursus prepared originally as an independent
composition. There is, moreover, a marked break at 18.6-7, where Maecenas
apologizes for digressing from the subject in hand (i.e., praise of monarchy as an
institution), with an assertion that what followsdetailed advice on how to rule
as monarchis not to be taken as mere idle chatter. It is thus conceivable that
Dio had previously composed a rhetorical speech full of commonplaces about the
good ruler (comparable to Agrippa's on republicanism versus tyranny), and later
replaced it with the extensive, specific recommendations that follow in the
present speech.
The genre of the debate is that of parallel suasoriae as practised in Roman
schools.5 The theme of the debate itself, however, was a perennial one in works
of ancient history: the insertion of such debates at critical changes in regime was
standard practice (cf. Dio frg. 12 on the expulsion of the kings; 43.15.2-18.5;
44.2.1-4; Dion. Hal. 4.72-75). As to the historicity of a full-scale discussion of
the future of Roman government in 29 B.C., there is every reason to think that
this took place, and that Agrippa and Maecenas participated. Millar suggests
that Dio developed his treatment out of a brief reference in Suetonius (Aug.
28.1): de reddendo re p(ublica) bis cogitavit, primum post oppressum statim
Antonium, "Two times he thought of restoring the Republic, the first time
immediately after the defeat of Antony."6 Manuwald, however, considers the
connection untenable on the grounds that Dio did not use Suetonius as a
source.7 But Dio and Suetonius may have drawn from a common source; and a
possible source on the merits of a republic versus a monarchy was the work of
Asinius Pollio.8 Dio, moreover, introduced speeches in his History when it was
likely that speeches were made, or when sharply contrasting viewpoints existed

Espinosa Ruiz Debate, esp. 470-490; J.-M. Roddaz, "De Csar Auguste:
L'image de la monarchie chez un historien du sicle des Svres," REA 85 (1983),
75-77.
On the suasoria, a speech of advice, in Roman rhetorical schools, see G.
Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton,
1972), 316-317, 510-511; M. Winterbottom, The Elder Seneca (Loeb) l.viii, xx-
xxi.
6
Study 105.
7
Dio 85 n48.
8
See, e.g., RE 2.1594-1597 = Asinius 25 (Groebe); E.D. Pierce [Biegen], A
Roman Man of Letters, Gaius Asinius Pollio (Diss. Columbia, 1922), 49-67;. A.B.
Bosworth, "Asinius Pollio and Augustus," Historia 21 (1972), 441-473 (Poliio as
desultor civilium bellorum ).
 INTRODUCTION 167

at critical junctures, and it is characteristic of his method to present antithetical

discourses in the manner of the dissoi logoi of the sophists and of Thucydides.
It should be noted that the tradition of such political debates in works of
history began with Herodotus, who records a debate on democracy, oligarchy, and
monarchy among the Persian leaders ea 522 B.C., just before the accession of
Darius (3.80-82). In Dio's own time, his contemporary (and probable
acquaintance) Philostratus, in his Vita Apollonii (5.32-37), presents a debate on
republican government, aristocracy, and monarchy in the presence of Vespasian. 9
Dio's own views on riuoKpatia (= republic) and u o v a p x i a were
previously set down by him in summary form at 44.2, expressed in terms
substantially similar to the words put into the mouths of Agrippa and Maecenas.
For all its "fair name," Dio there asserts, a republic does not actually bring
iaouoipia and ioovouxa to all; prosperous republics are short-lived; virtue cannot
be acquired by "the many;" and as for Rome, because of its! great diversity, the
extent and heterogeneity of its empire, and its many rich and powerful men,
moderation and harmony are not attainable under a republic. Monarchy is thus
the most advantageous form of government because it is easier to find virtue in
one man than in all, and under kings success is greater than under the people.
Dio's choice in Book 52 of dramatis personae for the opposing views on
republican government and monarchy in the presence of Octavian was dictated, in
part, by the prominence of Agrippa and Maecenas among the confidants of
Octavian (cf. 51.3.5-6). Dio, however, threw consistency to the winds in the
case of both of the speakers. Agrippa is used as supporter of a republic, looking
backward, in opposition to a forward-looking Maecenas in an antithetical
debate. 10 But, since Dio himself consistently holds up Agrippa as the model of
adiutor imperii, his role here is miscast. The rhetorical persona that Dio assigns
to Agrippa in this debatethe advocate of a republic (oTiuoMpa-ria)is separate
from his historical role as unremitting supporter off Octavian as princeps.
Literary fiction and reality jostle each other at 52.41.2f("aihop,gh he presented
the contrary view, he cooperated most zealously" in establishing the monarchy),
and again at 54.29.3 ("he cooperated with Octavian in establishing the
monarchy, as if he really were an enthusiast for monarchy;" and he was a grand

9
Cf. Dio Chrys. 3.45-49; Plut. Mor. 826e-f; Ps.-Sal. Ep. ad Caes, senem; E.
Barker, ed.. From Alexander to Constantine (Oxford, 1956), 99-100, for papyrus
fragment of the first century A.D. (Berliner Klassikertexte 7.16-18) in which
monarchy, democracy, and possibly also oligarchy are discussed.
10
Cf. Gabba RSI 67 (1955), 316.
168 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
benefactor of the people, "as if he were very much a supporter of the people
[oriuoTiKTa-to]").1 *
On the other hand, Maecenas is pictured by Dio here as the spiritual father
of the Principate and a political activist, though one would expect him, as an
avowed Epicurean, to prefer political quietism. Still, Roman imperial society
could contain Epicureans active in the senatorial order,12 even if the followers of
this philosophy preferred otium in private life under a benevolent monarch.
Finally, though a member of the equestrian order, Maecenas here vigorously
espouses the priority of the senators over the quits in the Roman social and
political hierarchy.
A one-folio lacuna in the manuscript curtails the end of Agrippa's speech
(2-13) and the start of Maecenas' (14-40). It is possible that frg. 110.2 (=
Boissevain 1.358; Cary 2.502-505), characterizing monarchy as the source of
blessings to the subjects, may come from the beginning of Maecenas' speech.13
It is also noteworthy that Dio did not include a conventional speech on the
merits of oligarchy or aristocracy, as superfluous: his views accorded with the
ideology of his class, that an educated, rich, committed elite of aristoi thrives
best under the leadership of a benevolent monarch.14

1.1 SrifiOKpaTijc: synonymous here with libera res publica, self-governing

"republic." Indeed, from the fourth/third century B.C., demokratia (originally
"rule by the citizen body") had come to designate any republic, even the most
oligarchic; by the end of the first century B.C., this was the standard
connotation. This constitutional form is distinct from "rule of one," whether a
aaiXeia or a uovocpxict (Dio's term for the Principate). See J.A.O. Larsen,
"Demokratia," CPh 68 (1973), 45-46; C. Rodewald, ed., Democracy: Ideas and
Realities (London, 1975), 119; Mason Greek Terms 34-35; J.H. Oliver, The
Ruling Power. A Study of the Roman Empire in the Second Century after
Christ Through the Roman Oration of Aelius Aristeides, TAPhS 43.4
(Philadelphia, 1953), 920-921, 927-928; J. Touloumakos, Zum
Geschichtsbewusstsein der Griechen in der Zeit der rmischen Herrschaft
(Gttingen, 1971), 76-77; Espinosa Ruiz Debate 79-84, 485; C. Nicolet, ed.,

In general, Dio renders the Latin civilis by Snuoiiic: cf. 53.12.1;

57.8.3, 9.1; 66.11.1; 73.3.4, 5.1. See A. Wallace-Hadrill, "Civilis Princeps:
Between Citizen and King," JRS 72 (1982), 44.
Cf. P.M. Swan, "A Consular Epicurean under the Early Principate," Phoenix
30 (1976), 54-60.
13
Cf. Millar Study 106.
On the Agrippa-Maecenas colloquy in general see Meyer De Oratione;
Schwartz RE 3.1717-1720; Ensslin CAH 12.59-60; Millar Study 102-118; van
Stekelenburg Redevoeringen 107-120; Espinosa Ruiz Debate passim.
 INTRODUCTION 169
Demokratia et aristokratia: propos de Caius Gracchus, mots grecs et ralits
romaines, Publ, de la Sorbonne, sr. hist. anc. et md. 10 (Paris, 1983; non
vidi).
ouvaoTEai: By SuvaatEtai Dio refers to exceptional concentrations
of personal power in Rome at the end of the Republic, as distinct from
monorchia. For Dio it was usurped power, a milder form of tyranny, such as
the dictatorships of Sulla (82-79), Caesar (49-44), and the Triumvirates ("First,"
60-49; Second, 43-33). Cf. Espinosa Ruiz Debate 63-69.
x 5 Tofcou |iovapxeo6ai a$0i SncpiBac, iipavto: "from
this time they began once more, strictly speaking, to be ruled by a monarch."
But there was, in fact, no doctrinaire planning on the part of Octavian, but rather
a pragmatic flexibility in creating new modalities.'See, e.g., E.T. Salmon, "The
Evolution of Augustus' Principate," Historia 5 (1956),! 459; K. Galinsky,
"Recent Trends in the Interpretation of the Augustan Age," Augustan Age 5
(1986), 23. This institutional gradualism and experimentation practised by
Octavian/Augustus, the absence of a clear ideology of the Principate at the start,
and as well, perhaps, the different conceptions of Augustus' power mat Dio
found in his sources (cf. Gabba RSI 67 [1955], 314 n4)all these help to
explain Dio's vacillation about the date of the "true beginning" of Octavian's
"reign." Neither the victory at Actium nor the triple triumph and the other
honours given to Octavian on his return to Rome in the middle of 29 marked a
definitive constitutional change to monarchy. (It is noteworthy that Dio
emphasizes a return to monarchy in Rome.)
At the beginning of Book 51 (1.1-2), Dio dates Octavian's sole power from
the epoch-making event of the Battle of Actium on 2 September 31; in Book 53
(17.1) he says of 16 January 27 that "from Augustus on there existed, strictly
speaking, a monarchy;" and at his death on 19 August A.D. 14, Dio states that
he had been ruler, from the victory of Actium, for forty-four years less thirteen
days (56.30.5). On Dio's lack of uniformity elsewhere in regard to the regnal
dates of Roman emperors, see L. Holzapfel, "Rmische Kaiserdaten," Klio 13
(1913), 290-293; van Stekelenburg Redevoeringen 108-110, 117-118. Van
Stekelenburg proposed (109-110) that Dio's-emphasis on 29 B.C. and his
insertion of the Agrippa-Maecenas debate at that point arose from his error in
believing (52.41.3-4n) that in that year Octavian assumed the title Imperator as
praenomen (as distinct from the use of the term as salutation for a military
victory). But, in fact, it was not until Vespasian's accession that Imperator
became synonymous with Emperor. Dio is obviously here retrojecting to the
age of Augustus the judicial-constitutional conception of the emperor in his own
time. He records that, immediately after the Agrippa-Maecenas debate, Octavian
was accorded the use of Imperator as praenomen (52.41.3-4n), signifying to Dio
170 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

the beginning of the Principate, since in his own time the day of acclamation as
Imperator was the start of the regnal year of the emperor (Gabba RSI 67 [1955],
313). See Appendix 15, "The Beginning of Augustus' Rule."
To Dio monorchia is synonymous with principatus, i.e., constitutional
rule of one, jointly with the senatorial class as aristoi, a rule that unites
eleutheria with monorchia (in Tacitus' terminology, libertas ac principatus). In
Dio's conception the cycle is from dynasteiai to monorchia (so here; cf. Hdn.
1.1.4; in Livia's fictive speech at 55.21.4 [A.D. 4], the transition is given as
from demokratia to monorchia ). See Espinosa Ruiz Debate 69-75.
T $ TE ytpovaUf, Kal t<p Sr|u,<p xiTpyai: "to turn over affairs
to the Senate and the People." This is written by Dio with foreknowledge of the
offer by Octavian in January of 27 (specious, in Dio's view) to give up his
emergency powers and restore the Republic (53.3-11). y^

2.1-13.7: AGRIPPA'S SPEECH

Because of its general, largely theoretical nature, Agrippa's speech is usually

dismissed as conventional rhetoric, following the pattern of the traditional
suasoria of the schools, filled with rhetorical topoi. When compared with
Maecenas' discourse, which is replete with specifics and looks toward the future,
Agrippa's words seem a commonplace treatment of a hackneyed theme with
nostalgic review of a dead past, and thus a patent straw man for Maecenas'
statesmanlike analysis. But in fact there is no fundamental opposition between
Agrippa and Maecenas; they complement each other, Agrippa presenting his
ideal concept of libertas, Maecenas the practical details of monarchia-principatus
(combining libertas with the "good king"). They are not oppositional; the
authentic Dio is in bom. They represent a bipolar expression of the same
political thinking, and both reflect reactions to contemporary events and persons
(see Espinosa Ruiz Debate 33-37,90-92,97-98,470-490).
The emphases of Agrippa's speech are on the strengths of a republic, the
potential weaknesses of monarchy, and the typology of tyranny. In particular,
the stock tyrantas role-model of unrestrained self-interest detrimental to the
welfarerbf the commonwealthwas a commonplace of literature, the schools of
rhetoric, and Cynic diatribes. In Agrippa's speech Dio surely had in mind the
reigns of Gaius Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Commodus, and Caracalla as
tyrannies, that is, debased forms~bf monarchy subjecting all, especially senators,
to douleia, "slavery." See J.M.C. Toynbee, "Dictators and Philosophers in the
First Century A.D.," G&R 13 (1944), 43-58; van Stekelenburg Redevoeringen
110-1 H; Roddaz Agrippa 209-216.
 2.1-13.7: AGRIPPAS SPEECH 171
Despite his obsession with tyranny, Dio through this speech "gives an
accurate account of some of the actual political difficulties and limitations which
faced an Emperor," and depicts "the monarchy [as] a grim and tedious burden"
(Millar Study 106). P. McKechnie ("Cassius Dio's Speech of Agrippa: A
Realistic Alternative to Imperial Government?," G&R 28 [1981], 150-155)
argues that Agrippa is portrayed here as "advocating an un-Roman ideology,"
making a case for ideal democracy of the Hellenic type, and warning against
tyranny in the Greek mould. Thus Agrippa's speech, McKechnie contends, was
not composed to contribute to a balanced debate but to set forth an idealistic
position assimilating "democracy" with the Roman Republic and with Hellenic
models, preliminary to the pragmatic choice made by Augustus. The nub of
McKechnie's view is that Agrippa's suggestions "are not intended as a realistic
alternative to imperial government, but as a demonstration of how outmoded and
impractical democratic ideals were in the context of the world-Empire of the first
century B.C. and the third century A.D." (pl54). There is, however, a basic flaw
in McKechnie's closely argued article: demokratia in Dio's thought signified
"republic" (see above, 52.1. In). Cf. Espinosa Ruiz Debate 530-531. Manuwald
{Dio 23 n63) properly dismisses as ill-conceived the article of J.G. Berrigan,
"Dio Cassius' Defense of Democracy," CB 44 (1968), 42-45.
Dio may have known Dio Chrysostom's modification of Prodicus' "Choice
of Heracles" in Or. 1.67-84 (written piobably in the reign of Trajan), in which
Heracles, offered the choice between tyranny and kingship, opted for the latter.
Cf. CP. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass.,
1978), 115-121. On echoes of Thucydidean speeches in the words of Agrippa,
see Kyhnitzsch De Contionibus 35-41.

2.4 8ox>\(00m\ieQa: Dio's choice of the word "slavery," here and

elsewhere, for the subjection of the People {demos) and Senate to the monarch,
despite his positive evaluation of kingship as historical necessity, reflects a
tradition in his sources that monarchy in debased form, amounting to tyranny,
resulted in servitium (Greek douleia) for the Romans; Cf. 47.39.4-5n; 52.15.1;
Floras 2.14.4; Manuwald Dio 12-15, 19, 79 nl8. But Dio elsewhere associates
the concept of enslavement of the Roman people with the Triumvirate, as
transitional period between republic and monarchy (see 50.1.2n). Cf. the Greek
version of AG 1.1, x KOiv jtpYHata...SowA.T|a [f|.eu]8[p<aa], for
Augustus' Latin rem publicam...in libertatem vindicavi.

2.6 tfi TV vSpeoxcov qroei: See Appendix 1, '"Human Nature' in

Dio."
 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

4.1-8 Dio, himself unalterably opposed to a self-governing republic and to

demokratia (cf. Gabba RSI 67 [1955], 316-317), puts into Agrippa's mouth an
assortment of moral reflections and topoi about republics. We are not given a
picture of the pluralistic Roman Republic with its mixed constitution, but an
idealized abstraction, an harmonious Utopian republic of equals, in which civic
virtue, rotation in office, and the rule of law prevail, and in which merit is
recognized and rewarded. Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 3A1 on "democracy" as an ideal
organization of society, but "the most impracticable of all."

4.1 iaovouaa: "equality before the law" or "political equality," obviously

not for all, but for a citizen elite that gives service equally to the commonwealth
and shares equally in- all other things. Isonomia was often a conventional
synonym for demokratia, with monorchia, tyranny, and oligarchy as its
opposites. Isonomia was, indeed, the original term for "democracy" in AthensV
and it remained a favourite slogan of the democracy. See G. Vlastos,
"Isonomia," AJPh 74 (1953), 337-366; J. Mau, E.G. Schmidt, et al., Isonomia:
Studien zur Gleichheitsvorstellung im griechischen Denken (Berlin, 1964); M.
Ostwald, Nomos and the Beginning of the Athenian Democracy (Oxford, 1969),
96-136; Espinosa Ruiz Debate 133-134.

43 iooyovia: "equality of birth," i.e., community of birthplace, which is

presumed to create a bond that grants equality of privilege (iaofioipia) and
excludes die master-slave relationship. This was a conventional topos, traceable
as far back as Plato (Mx. 238d-239a). See RE Suppl. 7.299 = Isonomia
(Ehrenberg).
&c t e 6ev yeyovo: On the human race as sprung from the gods,
cf. Dio frg. 30.2-3.

4.3-5 Dio here presents the principle of shared power, ~a "partnership" of his
own class in the governance and rewards of the empire, without tyranny and
coercion, and based on the willing acceptance by the monarch of a dedicated elite
(cf. Espinosa Ruiz Debate 285-286). On the conventional concept of shared
power and rotation in office among the aristoi (apxeiv...apxeo6cu), cf. Pl. Prt.
326d; Arist. Pol. 7.1332b, 1333a; Diog. Laert. 160.

5.1 TV Srjfimv xaxaaxaaxq: "this is the constitution of republics."

Dio's analysis is hardly more than a superficial glimpse of a republican system,
whether it applies to Greek cities or to the Roman Republic.
 2.1-13.7: AGRIPPA'S SPEECH 173

5.1-2 v...ta Tvpavvioi: Dio's treatment of tyranny herethe pivot

of Agrippa's speechreflects his own experience under the tyranny of such
emperors as Commodus and Caracalla, as compared with the reign of Marcus
Aurelius (seen as demokratia, and an "age of gold"). Cf. Espinosa RuizDebate
38,75-78,94-%, 281-283.
The typology of tyranny was a popular stereotype, a commonplace of
literature; and the stock tyrant (with his vices of saevitia, superbia, vis, avaritia,
libido: cf. 52.2.6-7)a role model (Kctvva xot> iou) breeding unrestrained self-
interest in everyone (as compared with the prevalence of community interests in
a republic)was a favourite subject of declamations in the schools of rhetoric.
See, e.g., Sen. De Clem. 1.11-26; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.67-84; J. Beranger,
'Tyrannus," REL 13 (1935), 85-94; J.R. Dunkle, Study of the Rhetorical Tyrant
in Rome of the First Century B.C. (Diss. Pennsylvania, 1965); Idem, "The
Rhetorical Tyrant in Roman Historiography: Sallust, Livyj and Taitus," CW
65 (1971), 12-20; H. Berve, Die Tyrannis bei den Griechen (Mnchen, 1967),
1.482-493; S. Lanciotti, "Silla e la tipologia dei tiranno nefla tetteratura latina
repubblicana, QS 3 (1977), no. 6, 129-153; 4 (1978), no. 8 191-225; Espinosa
Ruiz Debate 75-78. '

5.3-4 Dio's comments on the Roman aversion to "monarchy" are abstract and
unhistorical. The view that it would be difficult to establish a monarchy at
Rome because of the tradition of "freedom" is a venerable clich, pure rhetoric.
Of course the word rex was repugnant to Romans, but at the end of the Repub-
lic, while the members of the senatorial order defended their libertas, narrowly
conceived as freedom to compete for power and wealth, most Roman citizens
yearned for the traditional Roman civic libertas that guaranteed individual
freedom in the form of security of person and property.
The literature on libertas under the Roman Republic and; in the Empire is
now very large. See, e.g., G. Wirszubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome
during the Late Republic and Early Principale (Cambridge, 1950), with a review
of this book by A. Momigliano, JRS 41 (1951), 146-53; M. Hammond, "Res
Olim Dissociabiles: Principatus ac Libertas. Liberty under the Early Roman
Empire," HSCPh 67 (1963), 93-113; R. Klein; ed., Prinzipat und Freiheit,
Wege der Forschung 135 (Darmstadt, 1969); J.R. Fears, Roman Liberty: An
Essay in Protean Political Metaphor (Bloomington, 1980).
Similarly, Dio's reference to Roman allies and subjects as accustomed to
self-government (SriuoicpaTOUuevouc) or granted freedom by the Rofrians
(f|Xeu6epci>uivot))that is, granted the status of civitas libera under Roman
suzerainty and subject to the governors of the provincesis superficial,
historically simplistic and misleading, and too compressed. Is Dio here putting
174 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

into Agrippa's speech arguments so far from the mark that they can easily be
refuted by Maecenas? The contrast between eleutheria ("freedom") and douleia
("slavery") is frequent in Dio: e.g., 41.59.4; 45.35.1; 52.14.5; 62.4.3.

5.4 tv ui>U>v finv...KaTaXBoai: "to strip our populus [Romanus]

of power;" not, as Cary translates, "to overthrow our populace."
a\>\iiixovq...h%r\Kox): The first are states with which Rome had
treaty relations: civitates and client kings. The JCHKOOI are peregrini.

6.1-5 Xfriiiiaxa: Where he touches on public finances (here and elsewhere:

e.g., 52.28-30n), Dio exhibits a simplistic-conception. On the requirement of
large sums of money by a monarch (especially a Roman emperor)a matter that
he calls, from a moral perspective, "the least important consideration"and on
political economy in general, Dio reveals only the most elemefltary
understanding of the financial practice of the Roman Republic and of the
Principate.

6.1-2 In his emphasis here on voluntarism, Dio is depicting the public

financing of an ideal republic in which many citizens, motivated by local
attachments and the desire for honours from their community, willingly make
large contributions to the municipal treasury, and in which the population
consents to compulsory levies for the common good. In outlining the public
financing of such an ideal republic, Dio was, of course, not unaware that in the
last centuries of the Roman Republic most of the income of the aerarium populi
Romani came from tribute and various other taxes in the provinces, and that vast
personal fortunes were amassed by members of the senatorial and equestrian
orders through exploitation of the provinces. Augustus himself possessed
unparalleled wealth after 30 B.C.

6.3-4 v...Ta Suvaoteiai,: Dio's statement that, under a debased

monarchy (dynasteia), voluntary contributions dry up because of compulsion is
less a general, theoretical dictum than an implicit protest against the effects of
contemporary capital levies (cf. 52.28. l-4n). Well known is the vast outpouring
of expenditures from the fortunes of local rich for their cities' public works and
other civic needs throughout the empire in the first three centuries A.D.

6.5 o x p a t e v o v t a i : The polarized distinction Dio makes here between a

citizen militia in a republic and, under a monarchy, a professional army that
receives pay while others pay taxes to support it, is a general and theoretical one.
He was not, of course, unaware of the prevalence of the professional armies of
 2.1-13.7: AGRIPPAS SPEECH 175
the Roman dynasts in the last seventy years of the Republic. Furthermore, in
Dio's structuring of civilian classes of population under a monarchy (fanners,
artisans, merchants, governmental personnel [jioXueovtm]), he was cognizant
of the fact that in the Roman imperial period those in administrative posts also
received stipends from the public treasury.

7.1-5 Administration of Justice. In propounding a theory of the

administration of justice, Dio accepts Roman penal practice in criminal cases:
atimia (deprivation of privileges), phyge (exile), and thanatos (death). In his
usage atimia (Latin infamia) may mean loss of citizenship rights or of titles and
status symbols of the senatorial and equestrian orders (cf. 52.31.3; 55.18.3). See
B. Levick, "The Senatus Consultum from Larinum,"//?S 73 (1983), 108-110.
But in comparing administration of criminal justice under a republic and a
monarchy, Dio resorts to his usual polarized rhetoric. His praise here of
objective justice meted out under republics by juries of peers (7.5: Sucaora
ooi) is an abstraction: he thereby stresses in general terms the greater
acceptability, by those convicted, of decisions taken by peers (he* may indeed
have had in mind the conflict in his own time between senatorial jurisdiction
over senators and the intrusions of imperial authority against them: cf. CAH
12.373). But Dio, of course, knew that even-handed justice was not
characteristic of Roman criminal trials as practised during the last century of the
Republic. Not only were there improper verdicts under the jury-court system,
but sometimes the responsible magistrates did not carry out sentences passed on
the guilty. See Garnsey Status 4.
In monarchies Dio recognizes the dilemma between the jurisdiction of the
emperor (7.3: ato iiccceiv), who has the power to compel and whose
verdicts are therefore suspect, and of "other judges" (7.2: etepoi OIKCXOTOU), who
are prone to perverse leniency contrary to the wish of the- emperor. Flagrant
verdicts in contemporary cases may colour this passage: Dio niay have in mind
arbitrary judgements by appointees of the emperor clothed with judicial power to
try criminal cases (e.g., the praefectus praetorio or praefectus urbi), whose
displacement of earlier senatorial courts he seems to regret. Under Augustus and
through the first two centuries, the Senate served as a high court in important
cases or trials of distinguished persons, but by Dio's time it was giving way to
imperial jurisdiction. See Hammond Afonarchy 418-423. On Dio s objection to
the princeps as judge of his senatorial peers, see 52.31.3-4n.
For verbal influence here on Dio from Thucydides, compare Thuc. 4.60.1,
vucm evvoutp <ro\maxiaq, with Dio 52.7.4, voucm vvuq) iKOompiou.
176 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
7.5 %pixi vayKaotft: Gary translates "as a favour which a judge has
been forced to grant!" Dio means rather an adverse verdict forced upon the judge
through influence.

8.1-8 Dio expatiates here on the grim social dilemmas encountered by the
monarch in seeking suitable helpers. For he runs risks to his safety, no matter
whom he selects from the various sectors of the population: aristocrats, the rich,
the brave (dvpetou), the wise (ppovvuov), and the common man (<paAm).
For such a vast world empire, Dio urges the need for "brave" and "wise"
collaborators. His caution here about elevating the "common man" to positions
of authority and administrative posts, though framed so as to emphasize the risks
to the emperor himself, was prompted principally by fear of assaults against die
wealth, status, and the very existence of the traditional upper-class families of
the empire. The description of such upstarts as ignoble and lacking in education
(8.8: apaideusia)for examples in Dio, see Espinosa Ruiz Debate 293-295is
a harbinger of the defences vigorously mounted in the fourth century on behalf of
traditional culture by the peace-loving "mandarin" intellectuals threatened with
regression and decay in the face of growing barbarization. See C.G. Starr,
"Aurelius Victor, Historian of Empire," AHR 61 (1955-1956), 574-586; cf.
Bleicken Hermes 90 (1962), 459.

9.2-5 KpeiTTOD a i fHiOKpaxCai: This section sets forth the rhetorical

topos that Greece and Rome reached their highest achievements and renown not
under monarchy or tyranny, but under republics. On the Greek side Dio is not
explicit about what the Greeks "accomplished" and how they became "most
renowned." On the Roman side, it is clear that he has in mind principally the
expansion of the Roman empire under the Republic. The validity of the
statement that, where there is rotation in office, states remain "free and
autonomous" is belied by the controlled political status of Greek cities under
Rome.

9.3 oi ulv v Tvpavvton Kal VSV t i : Aside from the c o m m o n

palace intrigues in the realms of Roman client kings, Dio surely refers to the
dynastic rivalries in Parthia and Armenia, and perhaps also to the Germanic tribal
kingdoms.
Xev&epoi Koi aTvouoi: I.e., Roman colonies, municipia, and
civitates of varying grades of local autonomy, each with elected magistrates and a
city council.
 2.1-13.7: AGRIPPA'S SPEECH 177

9 Dio's structure here of Senate, People, army, and generals is less

characteristic of the traditional Roman Republic than of the third century A.D.

10.1 (IT| ivicuvcov: Is this an allusion to Augustus' well-known

perennially sickly nature?

10.4 5opi>90pcov: On the Greek terminology for the Praetorian Guard (also
aouiaxo^vhxKt, as at 9.3 above), cf. Magie De Vocabulis 137.

11-12 yaB 6pv: The great power wielded by the Roman emperor to
grant titles, offices, and money (Dio advises) needs to be exercised judiciously.
For one of the disadvantages of being a monarch is that inevitably there are
many more disgruntled persons who feel they deserved the favours of the emperor
than those whom he can benefit. It is therefore imperative that the emperor
maintain high standards of merit and not bestow benefactions capriciously.
Otherwise, he warns, morale will be destroyed on all sides: among the deserving
who are not benefited, and the undeserving who are {favoured. On Dio's
pessimistic view of human nature, see Appendix 1, "'Human Nature' in Dio."

11.2 T...aeXvaiveiv: See Dio on Caracalla as tyrant in 77.11.5-7.

12.4 In this section Dio was influenced by Thuc. 1.70.7 in some of his diction
and thought.

13.2-4 TEKfifipiov: Through the exempta given here, Dio is arguing in

effect that, since the Romans punished uncommonly good men on suspicion of
merely aspiring to monarchy, their hostility toward a real monarch would be far
more severe. On the wisdom of relinquishing sovereign power (dynasteia), Dio
cites the cases of Marius, Sulla, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (eos. 80), and the
early Pompey. These exempla are not all apt: Marius, for example, died in his
seventy-first year (of pneumonia), not in retirement t all, but while holding the
consulship for the seventh time and preparing to assume command of the eastern
legions. But probably Dio wasreferringto Marius' earlier multiple consulships,
from 104 to 1.00 B.C., and hisretirementafter this period from political centre
stage. Dio has Maecenas say elsewhere that "Marius and Sulla would have
suffered a similar fate as Caesar had they not died first" (52.17.3). Sulla was in
power (13.2: v KpVrei TWV repayuteiv) when he retired from the
dictatorship into private life in 79. Elsewhere, Dio lauds Pompey's disbanding
of his army in 62 as "universally worthy of admiration" (37.20.3-6).
178 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

Most editors have repeated the conventional identification of the Metellus

instanced by Dio with Metellus Creticus, eos. 69 (e.g., Leunclavius, Reimar,
Sturz, Cary 7.87), though Smilda (Boissevain 4.111) specifies Metellus
Numidicus, eos. 109 B.C. But Dio here places the Metellus in question
chronologically between Sulla and Pompey; moreover, he makes the Emperor
Tiberius praise him, in his eulogy on the dead Augustus (56.39.2), for willingly
dismissing the army that had fought under him. The evidence clearly points to
Metellus Pius and 71 B.C when he disbanded his army in northern Italy on
returning from Spain, this in the same year as Pompey and Crassus used their
legions in a coup d'tat. After mis Metellus faded into retirement. Cicero (Pro
Arch. 5.1) calls him homo sanctissimus modestissimusque omnium. See J.A.
Crook, "A Metellus in Two Passages of Dio," CR 62 (1948), 59-61; .R.
Burn, "A Metellus in Two Passages of Dio," CR 63 (1949), 52-53. It is just
possible that Dio here refers to Metellus' honourable refusal to command
defecting troops in 87 (cf. Plut. Mar. 42.3; C. Meier, Res Publica Amissa
[Wiesbaden, 1966], 238-239).
As exempta ofthose who perished for aspiring to tyranny (13.2; cf. 9.1),
Dio cites Cinna, Pompey's father Pompeius Strabo, the younger Marius,
Sertorius, and Pompey after his break with Julius Caesar. L. Cornelius Cinna,
Sulla's opponent, whom Sallust calls tyrannus (Hist. frg. 52 Kritz = 1.64
Maurenbrecher; cf. Plut. Caes. 1.1: Kivva TO uovapxrjeavTOc) a^ w n o w a s
killed in a mutiny of troops in 84, is an appropriate exemplum. But the case of
Pompeius Strabo (though he was a powerful and unscrupulous leader, and was
dragged through the streets after he died in the epidemic of 87) is hardly that of a
dynast-tyrant. Similarly, the younger Marius (who committed suicide aged
about 26 in the siege of Praeneste in 82) and Sertorius (whose career, despite his
murder in 73/72 by disaffected subordinates, had been remarkable for its
moderation) hardly fit the tyrant model. But all three were deemed to aspire to
tyranny. It is noteworthy also that Dio does not mention here Crassus and
Antony (whose fates were well known), probably because they did not meet their
ends as a result of "republican" hostility. The heroic figures of Camillus, Scipio
Africanus Maior, and Julius Caesar are cited as "incomparable men," punished at
the merest suspicion of monarchic aspirations. Camillus was banished because
of his extravagant triumph (Zon. 7.21.2-3), and Scipio was disgraced because of
jealousy (Zon. 9.20.12-13).
That Dio's "Agrippa" speech was an imaginary composition is documented
by the fact that he lifted exempta from the earlier speech he put into the mouth
of Cicero at the meeting of the Senate on 17 March 44, after Caesar's
assassination, a speech that was also a free invention (cf. Millar Study 51-52).
In Cicero's speech (44.28.1-2) Dio cites several of the same exempla (though for
 2.1-13.7: AGRIPPA'S SPEECH 179
a different motif: the evils of civil strife), but omits Metellus Pius and adds
Carbo (eos. 85, 84, 82) and Lepidus (eos. 78). Cf. van Stekelenburg
Redevoeringen 60-67.

13.5 Ta... xXeim KOI fieia> Stauvet: "most of them, and the most
important, survive." This is historically incorrect, a rhetorical exaggeration
inserted as a foil for Maecenas' statement at 52.17.4. Many of Sulla's
arrangements were abolished, not during his lifetime as Dio states (ibid.), but in
the consulship of Pompey and Crassus in 70 (cf. Gabba RSI 67 [1955], 317 n2).
On Sulla's flicitas and the continuance of some of his constitutional reforms,
especially in criminal law (e.g., the iudicio publica and the crimen maiestatis),
see R.V. Desrosiers, The Reputation and Political Influence of Lucius Cornelius
Sulla in the Roman Republic (Diss. North Carolina, 1969),r 194-212; J.P.V.D.
Balsdon, "Sulla Felix," JRS 41 (1951), 1-10; CAH 9.296-298, 304-308; E.
Badian, Lucius Sulla, The Deadly Reformer (Sydney, 1970).

13.7 5eivTi]TO: On the hostility of the Roman people to the rule of a

king, see above, 52.5.3-4n. Tyranny as a "natural outgrowth of monarchy" is
derived from the conventional cyclical meory of government as, for example, in
Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero.

Lacuna. One folio totalling 62 MS lines has been lost here. Zonaras'
epitome (10.32.9-14 Dindorf) gives some clue to the missing text: "Octavian
found Agrippa's view dissuading him from monarchy. But Maecenas advised the
complete opposite, stating that Octavian had already for a long time administered
a monarchy, and that one of two courses was now indicatedeither to remain in
the same monarchic position or, by abandoning the previous course, to die."
j j

14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH

This oration, the longest and most significant and memorable in Dio's History,
is the authentic voice of Dio: it contains the essence of his pragmatic thinking
about the Empire, the monarchy to which he was unreservedly committed, and
the interests and role of his social class in the imperial governance. We are
thereby brought in touch with the contemporary views of an important member
of the highest elite of the Empire, the expertise of a Roman senator of long
experience in politics and administration, andno less importantWs troubled
concerns for both the future of the Empire and his class in the face of the
upheavals of his times and the radical changes taking place under the Severans.
180 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
It is the only comprehensive political programme of the third century known to
us, written from the perspective of the senatorial nobility. As noted above, in
the Introduction to Book 52, Dio may originally have composed for this part of
the History two conventional declamations on the advantages of a republic and of
an absolute but enlightened monarchy, then later substituted at chapter 18.6 the
present "propaganda pamphlet" in place of the earlier conventional discourse.
Two contextual themes are mingled in this speech, at times as counterpoint
to Agrippa's arguments, at times in a random fashion: leading aspects of the
Principate of the first two centuries (as it evolved from the regime of Augustus
to the Seven), and also new proposals responding to the needs of the Empire in
his own turbulent and changing times. The impulse to Dio's reformative zeal
was an historical awareness of the growing crisis of the Roman Empire, and the
general transformation that was in process (see G. Alfldy, "The Crisis of the
Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries," GRBS 15 [1974], 92-93, 103L Dio
views this crisis from an essentially conservative perspective (as Gabba and
Millar have emphasized).
For the speech of Maecenas in general, see P. Meyer, De Maecenatis
oratione a Dioneficta (Diss. Berlin, 1891); M. Hammond, "The Significance of
the Speech of Maecenas in Dio Cassius, Book 52," TAPhA 63 (1932), 88-102;
A. Jard, tudes critiques sur la vie et le rgne de Svre Alexandre (Paris, 1925),
esp. 26-33; Vrind De Vocabulis 168; J. Crook, Consilium Principes (Cam-
bridge, 1955), 126-128; Bleicken Hermes 90 (1962), 444-453; van Stekelenburg
Redevoeringen 107-120; Gabba Studi (1962) 39-68; Millar Study 102-118; G.
Alfldy, Rmische Sozialgeschichte, 3rd ed. (Wiesbaden, 1984), 153. For a
thematic analysis of the speech of Maecenas, see A.H.M. Jones, ed., A History
of Rome Through the Fifth Century, 2: The Empire (New York, 1970), 49-51.

DATE OF COMPOSITION
To appreciate Dio's purpose in composing this impressive speech of Maecenas,
we must first seek to determine, if possible, the specific time when he wrote it.
That it was a sort of "political pamphlet" to help shape, or to criticize, the
policies of a contemporary emperor is beyond dispute. Which emperor? The
dominant scholarly view, since the publication of Paul Meyer's dissertation De
Maecenatis oratione in 1891, has been that Maecenas' speech was composed in
the reign of Severus Alexander to counter the "pro-senatorial policy" of that
emperor, and that the speech was subsequently inserted in its present position, at
the beginning of the "monarchy" of Augustus, to lend force to Dio's messages
to his contemporaries. Meyer's theory of date and purpose of composition was
supported, for example, by Schwartz (RE 3.1687, 1720 [= Griechische
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 181
Geschichtschreiber 398,447]) and by Bleicken (Hermes 90 [1962], 446), but for
different reasons.
Vrind (De Vocabulis 168) rejected Meyer's view that Maecenas' speech was
directed to Severus Alexander. C. Barbagallo (Storia universale, 2nd ed. [Torino,
1974], 2.2.1430-1434) proposed that the speech represented an early attitude of
Dio toward Septimius Severus as a new monarchical hope, though later Dio was
driven to a hostile stance against him. Gabba (RSI 67 [1955], 314-324; and
Studi [1962], 61) held that Maecenas* speech was written during the last years
of the reign of Septimius Severus or during the reign of Caracalla. Millar
(Study 102-105) assigned its composition to the middle of Caracalla's reign, ea
A.D. 214, and argued that it was intended for its present position in the History,
and was written to influence Caracalla as well as to present veiled criticism of
the social and political tendencies and restructuring in the reigns of Septimius
Severus and Caracalla. While this conception was supported by van
Stekelenburg (Redevoeringen 111-116), Millar's date has met with a mixed
reception. It was supported by G.B. Townend, JRS 55 (1965), 306-307; G.W.
Bowersock, "Greek Intellectuals on the Imperial Cult in the Second Century
A.D.," in W. den Boer, ed., Le culte des souverains dans l'empire romain,
Entretiens sur l'antiquit classique 19 (Vandoeuvres-Genve, 1973), 202-203; W.
Schmitthenner, Gymnasium 73 (1966), 307-308; R. Syme, Emperors and
Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1971), 155. Contra: H.W.
Pleket (TG 79 [1966], 452) had doubts; A. Deman (Latomus 25 [1966], 965)
rejected Millar's arguments as feeble, and proposed a date in the reign of Severus
Alexander, or perhaps of Macrinus, an equestrian whose anti-senatorial policies
threatened Dio's class interests (cf. also H. Mattingly, History 50 [1965], 207);
Lena (Ricerche [1979], 167-170, 185) argued that the speech was written not in
'214 but rather after 222, probably in 229/230; with renewed analysis of the
internal evidence as a whole, Espinosa Ruiz (Debate 487-489) supports 222 as
terminus ante quern for composition, and proposes a date either at the beginning
of the reign of Septimius Severus (193-197) or betlveen the death of Caracalla
and the accession of Severus Alexander (217-222); in, another reassessment of the
internal evidence, T.D. Barnes ("The Composition of Cassius Dio's Roman
History" Phoenix 38 [1984], 240-255) proposes that the period of composition
(after a decade devoted to research) was about 220-231 (or even slightly later), and
that in its present form the speech of Maecenas was written after 223, in the
reign of Severus Alexander.
While it is rash to attempt to pinpoint the exact time when Dio composed
the speech of Maecenas, specific details therein suggest that he was reacting to
events in the reigns of Caracalla, Macrinus, and Elagabalus: that is, in the period
from 211 to 222 (see the commentary below, at 19.1-2, 24.5, 30.1, 30.3-9,
182 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
31.1-32.3). This commentator regards it as judicious to optwith Meyer,
Letta, and Barnesfor a later date.
At the same time, Meyer's long-prevailing view that the speech was
written after 229 as a polemic in defence of a strong monarchy and against a pro-
senatorial policy of Severus Alexander, as tending to weaken the monarchy, has
been discredited, particularly through me work of Jard (op. cit. 26-33, 53-62),
who criticized Meyer's reliance on the Scriptores Historiae Augustae. Indeed,
Jard did not go far enough in discounting the factual content of the Vita
Alexandri, as showiTby-TTBr-Bames {The Sources of the Historia Augusta,
Collection Latomus 155 [Bruxelles, 1978], 28, 57-59), who estimates the
reliable portion of the Vita Alexandri to total two percent of the entire life.

THE PURPOSE OF THE SPEECH

While the evidence is inconclusive for dating the composition of Maecenas' V
speech (it remains an open question also for Flach, A&A 18 [1973], 135-136,
n31), it is certain that it was intended as a manifesto for a time that Dio sensed
was undergoing a metamorphosis comparable to the transformation of Republic
into Principate. What is also clear is that the speech contains data from various
chronological levels: the Augustan Age (very little); the second century, the
Antonine Age, which was Dio's conception of the "golden age" of the Empire
and whose restoration he fervently wished; and finally, the realities of the
Severan period and Dio's proposals for reform.
With regard to Dio's possible displeasure with developments under Severus
Alexander, one must consider that whatever enhanced influence the Senate did
enjoy under his reign was due to Alexander's weakness, not to a pro-senatorial
policy (cf. Millar Study 103). Dio was a confirmed proponent of a strong
monarchy: he was not anti-senatorial, nor pro-senatorial, if this meant
weakening the monarchy, nor even anti-equestrian. But he was
uncompromisingly anti-republican, because to him republican government
brought a high risk of social and political turbulence. Dio's dominant fear was
that the realignment of social forces (caused by the rising importance of the
quits and of military figures from the lower classes) would undermine not only
the strength of his own class but the very foundations of the Empire, even of the
monarchy itself as he envisaged it in its acme during the "golden age" of the
Antonines. Second to the preservation of the monarchy was his concern for die
maintenance of the political influence, economic strength, and the status and
dignity of the traditional senatorial order.
For Dio the Augustan system was the original precedent for, and also the
normative form of, the Principate, which he saw threatened in his own time.
Dio does reach back to the Augustan Age to legitimize his conception of the
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 183
Principate and to validate the continuity from the "norm" into his own times.
But his thinking in this regard is not "reactionary" and "regressive," as
Hammond has termed it. Hammond, indeed (TAPhA 63 [1932], 101), rejects the
view that Maecenas' speech is a political pamphlet in defense of monarchy. He
argues that Dio turned back to the Augustan Age for the roots of the institutions
that had given stability to the Empire for centuries: he was looking backward to
the origins, not peering into the future. With regard to the non-Augustan
"anachronisms" in the speech, these come of Dio's describing institutions
already in existence by or being discussed in his own time (cf. T. Pekry,
Historia 8 [1959], 485-486; and Flach A&A 18 [1973], 136-137, 141 n57, who
consider the institutions dealt with in Maecenas' speech to belong to the second
and early third centuries).
As for the "reform" proposals suggested by Dio, they would appear to be
formulations of tendencies in the early third century that were being sounded out
by thoughtful people, rather than visionary proposals. Bleicken (Hermes 90
[1962]) believes that Dio wrote his speech in criticism of 1jhe excesses of
Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Macrinus, and Elagabalusjand that some of Dio's
reformist views look beyond his own times. Crook (ioc. /cit.) offers the
attractive view that the reforms of Diocletian were in essence the objects of
contemplation already by men of the Severan Age, and that Dio's speech is
basically a plea for universalism, for a more unified system of administration,
finance, and taxation.

ON KINGSHIP: THE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND

Dio was the heir of centuries-old treatments of the desirability and character of
monarchy in the Greek East, as well as in the West more recently with the
establishment of the Principate. On the conventional orations Peri Basileias,
during the Empire, see the four discourses on kingship by; Dio Chrysostom (a
fellow Bithynian of the first and second centuries, whojse works may have
influenced Dio); the Panegyricus of Pliny the Yongr fr Trajan as optimus
princeps; Philostr. VA 5.35-36; Anon. Eis Basilea (traditionally included among
the works of Aelius Aristides [35 Keil]). With regard to the last, L.J. Swift
("The Anonymous Encomium of Philip the Arab," GRBS 7 [1966], 267-289)
argues mat Philip the Arab was the emperor addressed, and provides a translation
of the speech; CP. Jones (JRS 62 [1972], 134-152) supports the view that it
was a speech of Aristides to Antoninus Pius. (On Aelius Aristides, see the
judicious treatment by E. Gabba, "The Historians and Augustus," in Millar &
Segal Augustus 67-68.)
Much of the underpinning of these views of the "true king" is
conventionally Platonic, Stoic, and Cynic in origin, and is found even in tracts
184 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
of Epicurean thoughtall these systems preferred beneficent monarchy in the
interests of social order, individual happiness, or quietism. In line with the
Greek philosophic conception of the moral and spiritual superiority of the
sophos, Dio conceived of monarchy as the most practical system, for it is easier
to find one good man, impossible to find many such. The masses are not
capable of acquiring the necessary virtues, and history demonstrates that
democracies are short-lived. Like Dio Chrysostom, Cassius Dio was pessimistic
about human nature and distrustful of the moral character of the masses, and so
remained a confirmed supporter of a monarchy that accorded a significant role to
the aristoi as partners in power.
The position that the tone and contents of Maecenas' speech were derived,
at least in part, from the Epicurean tract of Philodemus (a contemporary of
Maecenas) on "The Good King According to Homer," and that they represent the (
authentic thinking of the historical Maecenas is properly rejected by T. Dorandi,
"Der 'gute Knig' bei Philodem und die Rede des Maecenas vor Octavian
(Cassius Dio LH. 14-40)," Klio 67 (1985), 56-60.
See V. Valdenberg, "La thorie monarchique de Dion Chrysostome," REG
40 (1927), 142-162; E.R. Goodenough, "The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic
Kingship," YCIS 1 (1928), 55-102; L. Delatte, Les traits de la royaut
d'Ecphante, Diotogne et Sthnidas, Bihl. Fac. de Philos, et Lett, de Lige 97
(Lige, 1942); J.H. Oliver, The Ruling Power. A Study of the Roman Empire
in the Second Century after Christ through the Roman Oration of Aelius
Aristeides, TAPhS 43.4 (Philadelphia, 1953), 869-1003; Gabba RSI 67
(1955), 320 n4; CAH 12.59-60; O. Murray, "Philodemus on the Good King
According to Homer," JRS 55 (1965), 161-182; Millar Study 74-118; J.
Touloumakos, Zum Geschichtsbewusstsein der Griechen in der Zeit der
rmischen Herrschaft (Gttingen, 1971), 77 nl63.
On echoes of Thucydidean speeches in Maecenas' oration, see Kyhnitzsch
De Contionibus 35-41.
Maecenas' speech, defective at the beginning, opens with a refutation of
Agrippa's support for a republic (chapters 14-18); the major portion (19-40)
contains proposals for a monarchical constitution and reforms, with a coda (34-
40) on the ideal princeps.

14.1-15.1 General Proposals. Dio's broad guidelines, put into

Maecenas' mouth, for restructuring the government and administration of the
empire in order to achieve greater harmony, balance, and moderation (14.1: to
sophronesteron), constitute his panacaea for mitigating the excesses of the
Severan monarchy. The Platonic tenor of the proposals is patent: the lower
classes must be kept in check (14.3: TT|v...6pao-\miTa TO jtou jtoaai);
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 185
government must be fully in the hands of the emperor and the elite (oi apurroi).
These latter, as the most intelligent ((ppovtjirxaioi), are to be senators
(ovXEUcooi) and hold the military commands, while persons of the greatest
physical capacities and the neediest are to be assigned to the armed forces. Thus,
with each class performing its proper function under an enlightened monarch, and
serving society in conformity with its own peculiar virtue, a harmonious, stable
order would result, assuring oov mcaoi Korea TTJV tav, "equality for all in
accordance with worth" (14.5). This, declares Dio, is "true democracy" and
"enduring freedom" (TT|V ortuotcpatiav ff|v Xr|8r| Trjv te Xcudeptav xiiv
oq>aXr\: 14.4), whereas the "freedom of the masses" results in the bitterest
slavery (douleia) for the best elements in society and disaster for all, through the
resultant tyranny (15.1). Thus Dio redefines Agrippa's demokratia as monarchy -
under an ideal princeps (cf. Espinosa Ruiz Debate 79-84). Dioi's anxiety for the
very existence of the empire and his conception of the duty of elites (including
the higher glasses of the eastern provinces) to commit themselves, to active
participation in the governance of the empire, were shared by Appian and Arrian.
See Gabba RSI 71 (1959), 370-372, 380-381; Rostovtzeff SEHltE 1.119-126;
Millar Study 74-118.
Thus for Dio a "true democracy" for the whole Roman Empire is assured
by a hierarchical and meritocratic system under an optimus princeps, who
protects the masses and assures everyone his due. See CG. Starr, "The Perfect
Democracy of the Roman Empire,?' AHR 58 (1952-1953), 1-16; Oliver, op. cit.
927^928; J. Palm, Rom, Rmertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur
der Kaiserzeit (Lund, 1959), 134; Gabba, in Millar & Segal Augustus 74. Non
vidi: L. Jerphagnon, "Le mythe dmocratique dans l'empire romain," Cahiers de
philos, pol. etjur. (Caen Univ., 1982), 1.21-26.

14.1 iietappSuio-ov: For uexappuSuieiv in the sense of "reorganize,"

cf. 61.4.2. I \

14.2 Dio's warning against excess freedom and egalitarianism (jcaiSl Sf| tivi
Kal uaivouvcp i<poc pyei, "hands a sword to a child, and a mad one at that")
was a proverbial statement. Cf. Clem. AI. Strom. 1.14.3 (contemporary with
Dio).

14.3 Oh Dio's contrasting of oi cxptatoi, oi Ttpcoroi, or oi 5vaioi with

ouiAo or oi itoXAo, cf. 47.3.4; 52.37.7. On republic vs. monarchy, cf. 44.21.1
(on the assassination of Julius Caesar).
186 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
15.1 \ii i&v pioxwv vSpv: Here we find Dio's basic conception
of the good monarch ruling with the cooperation of an aristocracy, with due
place for both senators and quits, but excluding the masses (tv JtoXXrv).

15.2-4 The absolute power of the emperor, as commander of the armies, in

consultation with his consilium, to declare and conduct war secretly (krypha)
i.e., without referral to a popular assemblywas already operative under
Augustus. Dio's proposal, for the sake of harmony and stability, that popular
participation in the choice of magistrates be eliminated through application of
the merit principle is directed against two practices: the use of the lottery in
some republics for choosing magistrates, and electioneering for office during the
Roman Republic and the Augustan Age. Under Tiberius, from A.D. 14/15,
popular elections effectively gave way to elections in the Senate, witl^
commendatio and nominatio as privileges of the emperor. The comitia,
however, continued to meet, even in Dio's own time (cf. 58.20.3-4), as mere
formality for acclamation and announcement of the electoral results. See Millar
Emperor 301-304; R. Frei-Stolba, Untersuchungen zu den Wahlen in der
rmischen Kaiserzeit (Zrich, 1967), 139-140, 212-213. For imperial
designation of magistrates under the Antonine monarchy, see Ulp. Dig.
42.1.57: princeps enim, qui ei magistratum dedit, omnia gerere decrevit;
Hammond Monarchy 245-246,264-268.

15*4 xapaKE&euoTO: "factions." Cf. 39.18.1; Thuc. 6.13.1.

15.5-6 Dio's plea here for universalism and greater uniformity and
centralization of administration (as counterpoint to Agrippa's view at 52.4.1-2)
is documented by his emphasis on the large population of the empire and its
pluralistic character. Cf. 44.2.4; 47.39.4-5, on the necessity of monarchy
because of the great size of the empire.

15.5 Tv...Kp<oxet<ov peruevoi: "aiming at primacy." Cf. the same

phrase in Diod. Sic. 17.54.6.

16.3-17.2 Dio here falls back on the Platonic image of the Ship of State
{Rep. 6.488) floundering without an absolute monarch as pilot and arbiter. It is
obvious that Dio in this image is striving to compose a purple passage, for his
language becomes recherch. On the clich of the Ship of State in antiquity, see
the commentary on Hor. Carm. 1.14 in R.G.M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, A
Commentary on Horace: Odes Book I (Oxford, 1970), 178-188. Although the
Ship of State image was a trite one, its use by both Dio and Horace for the same
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS" SPEECH 187
perilous moment in Roman history (about 29 B.C.) may be more than
coincidence. Nisbet and Hubbard suggest that Horace wrote 1.14 when the
rumour spread that Octavian might relinquish his hold on power.
For Dio's x...vepuaTioTo, (16.3: "cargo ship without ballast"), cf.
Pl. Tht. 144a, tt vEpu-TioTct TtXoa. Dio's image comes ultimately from
Alcaeus (148 Page). With Dio's Jtepl epua Jtepippayfjvai (16.4), cf. Thuc.
7.25.7, Epi pua JtepiaA-.

17.3 Kot TT) Suvootelo: Unless intended merely as a rhetorical

response to Agrippa's instances, the exempta of Pompey and Caesar as losing
their lives by standing down from power are not apt. Previously (52.13.2-4n)
Dio had presented Pompey as a model of wisdom in stepping down; here this
move is given as die cause of his death. And Caesar, of course; ws assassinated
at the height of his power. Dio may be referring here to Caesar's avoidance of
monarchy in his rejection of die crown (cf. 44.11.3).

17.4 xv 2/XXav: Dio's statement that "some say" thai Sulla committed
suicide is not confirmed by any other source. On the fate of Sulla's legislation,
see 52.13.Sn. It is noteworthy, for an understanding of Dio's methods, that he
uses conventional exempla (Lepidus [eos. 78], Sertorius, Brutus, Cassius) when
he might have cited the name of an actual conspirator against Octavian: M.
Aemilius Lepidus, son of the triumvir, in 30 B.C. (see Syme Revolution 298;
Dio 54.15.4).

18.2-4 TOW lEOCxpo OOD: On Octavian as ultor of Caesar's assassins, cf.

RG 2: qui patrem meum trucidaverunt eos in exilium expuli, iudiciis legitimis
ultus eorum facinus, "Those who assassinated my father I drove into exile,
avenging their crime by due process of law" (cf. Gate Res Gestae 74-75); Livy
Per. 120; Vell. Pat. 2.69.5; Tac. Ann. 1.9.3-4; Suet| Aug. jo.l; App. BC 3.95.
But for Augustus' treatment of the memory of Julius Caesar and his consistent
policy of disassociation from him, see E.S. Ramage, "Augustus' Treatment of
Julius Caesar," Historia 34 (1985), 223-245. -

18.5 T jt&iredo Tf\ pxrt: "the size of the empire," responding to

Agrippa at 52.7.1.

18.6-7 d x a p t a v xb xt\ xapox>oi)q bxoQaeaq TOV Xyov:

Dio's notice here, that he is shifting emphasis and introducing a digression" on
how best to rule Rome, has important bearing on the date of composition of
188 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

chapters 19-40. See above, Introduction to Book 52, and on 52.14.1-41.2 (under
Date of Composition).

19.1-2 t ouXeuxiKv ffv...8iaXai: Dio's proposal of a lectio

senatus to ensure the desired quality of membership is based, in part, on his
knowledge of measures taken by Augustus (see below, e.g., 52.42. l-4n). But it
is appropriate also for the time of the Severan monarchs: in both periods civil
wars had resulted in the entry of "unworthy" men into the Senate (for specific
"unworthy" senators noticed by Dio in his own time, see Espinosa Ruiz Debate
306); and some "worthy" senators did not have the requisite property
qualifications. Both Augustus and the Severans provided subventions to
favoured senators who lacked the means to maintain their rank. Cf. HammoriH*.
Monarchy 244-287; Talbert Senate 64.

19.2-3 TO\> ptotou: Dio's recommendation that senators, as "sharers in

empire" (KOIVWVOI ooi xf| pxn)> be enrolled from the worthy elite not only of
Italy but of all the provinces (jtap xrv O~UHU(XX<V xabv xe i>]tr|Ktv...^
HtvTosv xtv 0vcbv) reflects actual Severan practice. (Dio would, of course,
exclude Egypt as a source of the elite: see 51.17.1-2n.) This comprehensive
range of senatorial origins does not apply to the Augustan Age, when there were
few senators from outside Italy. Even in the time of the Seven, the number of
senators of Italian origin was substantial: together with senators from the
western provinces (notably from Africa and Spain), they constituted a majority.
In 1914 F. Sintenis (Die Zusammensetzung des Senats unter Septimius Severus
und Caracalla [Diss. Berlin, 1914], 35-49), whose statistics were based on a
relatively small number of senators with certain or probable places of origin,
estimated that under Septimius Severus and Caracalla (193-217) the proportion
of provincial senators was only a third to a half, and that the largest number of
provincial senators came from the most Romanized eastern provinces or from
centres of Hellenism. G. Barbieri (JL'albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino
(193-285) [Roma, 1952], 433-447), with far more extensive statistics, gives the
following estimates: those of Italian origin, 43%; from Africa, 15%; from
western provinces, 8.8%; and eastern, 32.6%.
For the composition of the Senate under the Severi, see also P.
Lambrechts, La composition du Snat romain de Septime Svre Diocttien
(193-284), Diss. Pannonicae 1.8 (Budapest, 1937), 110-111; M. Hammond,
"Changes in the Composition of the Roman Senate from A.D. 68 to A.D. 235,"
JRS 47 (1957), 74-81; Idem, Monarchy 249-254.
Few provincial senatorial families under the Severi went back more than a
generation or two. Still, as Hammond shows (JRS 47 [1957], 80), "the
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS" SPEECH 189
replacement of Italians by provincials was a gradual process and not due to the
prejudice of any given emperor, even of Septimius." Cf. G. Alfldy,
"Septimius Severus und der Senat," BJ 168 (1968), 112-160, who demonstrates
that Septimius Severus was not anti-senatorial, and that after the civil war his
aim was to cooperate with the Senate in order to create a stable monarchy. See
also G. Walser, "Die Beurteilung des Septimius Severus in der lteren und
neueren Forschung," MH 30 (1973), 108-116.

19.4-5 i%\ Tv Ixitoov: Dio's advice about the role of the equestrian
order (now almost all landed proprietors) is a reaction to the growing importance
of the quits in the imperial service from the end of the second century. He is,
however, not so much exercised at this "sharing of power? (here Cary [Loeb]
mistranslates rh.v Tweuoviav as "chief magistracy") in the imperial
administration through the elevation of qualified provincials to the elite of
second rank, as he is repulsed by the quality of quits and soldiers elevated by
the Severi into important imperial posts. Cf. Bleicken Hetmes 90; (1962), 458-
460, 465; A. Stein, Der rmische Ritterstand (Munich, 1927), 166-167, 170-
171; P.A. Brunt, "Princeps and Equits," JRS 73 (1983), 65.
Dio had in mind, for example, such men as M. Oclatinius Adventus
(78.14), Aelius (Decius) Triccianus (78.13.3), and P. Valerius Comazon (79.4.1-
2, 21.2), who rose from the lowest ranks, without education, to the highest
imperial posts under Macrinus and Elagabalus.

19.5 Toi> pxouivou: I.e., all free persons below the rank of Dio's
aristocratic elites, the senators and quits (TIUV, rjuv).

19.6 foxep xvv uiav tf|v h.uetpav icXiv oiicojvTe: "living,

as it were, in one city, our own." Dio's formulation of the concept of Rome as
the "only" city in the empire, as the patria of everyone, reflects the Constitutio
Antoniniana, which extended Roman citizenship to all free persons in the empire
in Caracalla's reign. In effect, the Roman practice of allowing dual citizenship
in Rome and the place of origin of Roman citizens was now made universal.
The traditional freedom of "autonomous" Greek cities was, accordingly, no
longer a significant cultural value, since die emperor guaranteed "true freedom"
to all. In another context (77.9), Dio derides Caracalla's decree, declaring mat he
impoverished the empire by his exactions, and that the true purpose of the grant
of universal citizenship was to increase revenues. On Rome as the "universal
city," see M. Hammond, "Ancient Imperialism: Contemporary Justifications,"
HSCPh 58/59 (1948), 122, 157, nl24; D. Nrr, "Imperium und Polis in der
hohen Prinzipatszeit," Gymnasium 72 (1965), 486-499; Idem, Imperium und
190 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

Polis in der hohen Prinzipatszeit, Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und

antiken Rechtsgeschichte 50 (Mnchen, 1966), 91.
a$8i: Apparently at 52.30.2-10, on the curtailment of the rights and
expenditures of cities.

20.1 tfi f|X,iK: Dio's minimum age for enrolment into the Senate
twenty-five yearswas the one established by Augustus and still in effect in
Dio's time. Dio gives the minimum age of eighteen for admission into the
equestrian order (not, like the senatorial order, hereditary), for which the
qualifications were birth, property, and merit. Dio's concern here is, in part, due
to the fact that through favouritism boys were advanced prematurely to offices
and distinctions, especially members of the imperial family. Note, for example^
his disapproving account of the precocious advancement of Gaius and Lucius
Caesar, spoiled grandsons of Augustus (55.9.1-3; cf. RG 14). Compare Marcus
Aurelius, given the equus publicus at six (SHA Marc. 4.1); Commodus, called
Caesar at five (cf. SHA Comm. 1.10)ASee A. Stein, Der rmische Ritterstand
(Mnchen, 1927), 73, 76; D. McAlindon, "Entry to the Senate in the Early
Empire," JRS 47 (1957), 191-195; F.F. Abbott, A History and Description of
Roman Political Institutions, 3rd ed. (New York, 1911; rpt. 1963), 275-276,
374-375.

20.2-5 x px<x: The cursus honorum given here by Dio had been the
regular, traditional ladder of the magistracies in Rome since Augustus' time.
These magistracies were not, in the third century, filled by election in the Senate
but by appointment by the emperor (cf. Ulp. Dig. 42.1.57; Modest. Dig.
48.14.1; Millar Emperor 300-309). Dio acknowledges that the magistracies held
by members of the senatorial order existed largely proforma: they maintain the
tradition, do not afford much power, but mark status in the senatorial hierarchy.
Their principal functions, in the higher ranks (consuls, praetors), were to be to
conduct festivals and to act as judges with appellate jurisdiction from standing
courts (quaestiones perpetuae), whose jurisdiction since the time of Marcus
Aurelius was limited to non-capital cases (cf. Bleicken Hermes 90 [1962], 448-
449 n4). The jurisdiction of the magisterial court over non-capital cases, with
capital offenses assigned to the praefectus urbi, reflects the legal practice of Dio's
own time (cf. RE 24.779 = Quaestio 1 [Kunkel]). See Hammond Monarchy
292-294.
Dio's statement here (20.5) about the obligation of magistrates to conduct
the festivals belonging to their office is vague. Augustus in 22 (54.2.3-4) had
transferred the obligation to provide the traditional games (ludi Megalenses,
Ceriales, Florales, Apollinares, Romani, and Plebeii) from the aediles to the
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS" SPEECH 191
college of praetors, an arrangement that continued in effect to the mird century
(and later). Consuls continued to have significant obligations in this area. See
Mommsen StR 2.136-138, 236-238; RE Suppl. 5.614, 617-630 = Ludi Publici
(Habel); Hammond Monarchy 292-293; Talbert Senate 59-60.

2 0 3 xp nXfjSei fl Kal t $ &f\\up: Dio distinguishes carefully between

demos (= Latin populus) and plethos (= plebs), and their voting in the Comitia
Centuriata and Comitia Tributa respectively. Cf. Vrind De Vocabulis%. .On,
Dio's negative attitude towards-the~ massesas given to excessr greed, and -
disordersee-Wirth Dio 29.

21.1-2 noXiapxo: I.e., praefectus urbi. This quasi-rtfagistrapy, provided

with imperium and fasces, was institutionalized in the imperial bureaucracy by
Augustus (cf. Suet. Aug. 37) as an office to be held by a consular senator for
life. The jurisdiction of the praefectus urbi, as given by Dio, is reflected in
general developments in his own time (Bleicken Hermes 90 [1962J, 448-449 n4;
Idem Senatsgericht 154 n2). Millar {Study 114-115) believes that Dio is here
proposing a reform: that the praefectus urbi hear appeals in capital cases from
magistrates and governors of provincesan innovation to diminish the
jurisdiction of the praefectus praetorio (cf. Espinosa Ruiz Debate 310). As
highest judge below the emperor, the praefectus urbi would hear cases on appeal
and referral ((peGiuoi)...vajtouit{u,u = the procedures of provocatio and
remissio). See R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light
of the Papyri, 332 B.C.-640 A.D., 2nd ed. (Warszawa, 1955), 521-522; de
Martino Storia 4.1.641-647; A.A. Schiller, "The Jurists and the Praefects of
Rome," RIDA 3 (1949), 322-325; G. Vitucci, Ricerche sulla praefectura urbis in
et imperiale (Roma, 1956), 43-81; OCD s.v. "Praefectus 0rbi;" P. Garnsey,
"The Lex Julia and Appeal under the Empire," JRS 56J(1966),j 180-181.
As commandant of the cohortes urbanae, ihe^praefetus urbi was also
responsible for public order in the capital and, from the second century on, up to
100 miles outside the city limits, beyond which (in Italy) the authority of the
praefectus praetorio was operative. (On 750 stades = 100 Roman miles, see
51.19.6-7n.) Dio includes here (21.1) a rather antiquarian comment on the
original, temporary surrogate role of the praefectus urbi under the Republic.

21.3-7 JtOTiUTiffi: Dio proposes here that a new high senatorial official
(appointed for life) be established to take off the hands of the emperor (while -
being directly responsible to him) most of his censorial responsibilities.
Among other things, this new post would remove such authority from the
imperial bureau a censibus, an equestrian position. Exclusions of quits from
192 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

the proposed office, Dio hoped, would check the elevation of lower-class men
into the Senate. To emphasize the point, Dio puts into the mouth of
Maecenasan equesthe recommendation that the office of hypotimetes not be
given to one of the quits.
Dio's proposal for the new office in the imperial administration and his
suggestion for a titlevice-censorwere never implemented. The suggested
title may derive both from the existence of wtooTpTrryoi of the emperor in the
provinces (i.e., legati Augusti legionis [Vrind De Vocabulis 82-83]), and from
the post of vice praefectus praetorio (wcapxo): see below, 52.24.3n.
The last non-imperia holders of the office'of censor were Paullus Aemilius
Lepidus and L. Munatius Plancus, in 22 B.C. under Augustus (cf. 54.2.2).
When Aulus Vitellius was censor in A.D. 47, it was with the Emperor Claudius
as his colleague. After Domitian the title vanished from the imperial titulatureV
See, on this proposal of Dio, Mommsen StR 3.489-491; Espinosa Ruiz Debate
311-312; on imperial censorships, see Hammond Monarchy 85-87.

21.5 i iov, v yz |i^: "for life, except when...." For removal from
office for cause (obrogatio), see Mommsen StR 1.628-630.

21.8 Rplv...atpaiT|Yiiaai: "before...holding the praetorship." Dio is

here criticizing the frequent assignment of provincial posts (with imperium) to
senators who had not yet held the praetorship. He advises that senators first
serve for two years as legati (ajTcoaxpaTTryetToaoav) to praetorian governors
before themselves being assigned (after holding the praetorship) to a provincial
governorship, for which fiYeuovia is Dio's term here, one that he employs
regularly for imperium ("command": see Vrind De Vocabulis 62-70; Mason
Greek Terms 137).
The reading o v euco>, "whomever I mention," gives poor sense since
Dio is obviously referring to previously mentioned officials. A possible
emendation is o voo eicov, "whom I mentioned above," i.e., the praetorian
governors.

22.1-6 Kaxveitiov exaoTaxoBi: This radical proposal of Dio for

sweeping territorial and administrative reform is aimed at establishing uniformity
in administration. Dio's concept of dividing the entire empire, including Italy,
into smaller districts was ahead of its time; yet such a reorganization may already
have been under consideration in governmental circles in Rome, and there is
evidence for some provincial restructuring before A.D. 250 (see C. Rouech,
"Rome, Asia and Aphrodisias in the Third Century," JRS 71 [1981], 103, 117).
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 193

Such a definitive reorganization did not come into existence until Diocletian's
reforms.
The proposed uniform provincial system of Dio, which would in one fell
swoop wipe away differences in the administration of imperial and senatorial
provinces (cf. Jard tudes 31 ni), would require three administrators for each of
the districts: a consular senator with imperium and wide appellate jurisdiction,
and two aides (legati) of praetorian rank. Quite novel is the proposed separation
of military and civil administration: the public affairs of all substantial cities
( t a Koiv T(ov icXecav) would be under one of the aides, who would also
command the troops stationed in the district (in Dio's time all provinces had
armed forces in garrisons); the other legatus would have jurisdiction over civil
matters (iSiomtc npyuaTa) and be in charge pf the quartermaster
department. On the strength of Dio's proposal, Bleicken (Hertnes 90 [1962],
452) concludes that separation of military and civil affairs was first officially
considered not later than the reign of Severus Alexander. :

The dual-penalty system for honestiores and humilidres is reflected in Dio's

injunction to refer to the emperor capital cases involving centurions on active
duty (tv v to KOXOXYOI VTOOV [22.3] = Latin in numeris esse), and
prominent persons anywhere. See Garnsey Status 103-178; Idem, "Legal
Privilege in the Roman Empire," in M.I. Finley, ed., Studies in Ancient Society
(London, 1974), 141-165.
In 22.1 I read oa -ye (not oac yz), modifying xiJka ndvxa as
defining the administrative compass of each of the proposed districts: "all other
territories.. .such as are adequate to be governed by one man with full powers."
Cary (Loeb) mistranslates both here ("and take also all the cities that are strong
and independent enough to be ruled by one governor with full powers") and again
at 22.2 (for pxovxa Ka8' KoiO'o va...it|j.jc, "send out as governor to
each district or independent city"): this emphasis 0^1 cities; does not reflect the
text of Dio or me administrative arrangement he proposes, j

22.4 &v u,v Xvyoi xiv v evixo teixeotv fl Kal v fevl

itoXmieip oxpateuaimai: "if a small body of troops is serving in the
non-citizen contingents [i.e., auxiliary forces], or even in a single citizen
legion." Cary (Loeb) mistranslates: "if only a small body of troops is serving
abroad in die military posts or at home in a single post." By eviic tcixn Dio
means regiments of non-citizen troops stationed in auxiliary forts along the
frontiers. The auxilia of peregrini were made up of smaller tactical :urUtsJ500-
1000 men). Even after Caracalla's Constitutio Antoniniana, which virtually
swept away the distinction between cives and peregrini, traditional terminology
survived (cf. 73.14.3: jtoXvcucwv otpatoiteSov m l aXXxov ^eviKv). See
194 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

G.L. Cheesman, The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army (Oxford, 1914), 17,
21, 25, 105, 111-112; OCD s.v. "Auxilia;" G. Webster, The Roman Imperial
Army, 3rded. (London, 1985), 141-156,213-230.

22.5 woJtiiiKv...{8ieotiKv: Again, Cary (Loeb) mistranslates:

"matters affecting either the state or private citizens." Dio here refers to the two
separate jurisdictions of the governor's aides: affairs of the cities and those of
individuals.
For cases appealed (KKXT|XO\)) and referred (vaJtouniuou) from
subordinate officials, see above, 52.21.1-2n, Dio here defines the usual
hierarchical direction of appeals and referrals in the provinces: from officials of
praetorian rank (cf. oxpaxriYTiKOxa) to those of consular rank (imaxeuKcoc,).
The MSS reading here{two xtv axpaxryyuv axois defective. Reiske's^
valuable emendations to ito and ax do not, perhaps, go far enough: the
sense requires eaTpctTtryriKOTrov.

22.6 Kal TTjv 'IxaXiav: For Dio the Italy of the third century was,
administratively speaking, virtually a province. The preliminary steps in this
evolution had been taken by Hadrian, who divided Italy into four judicial
districts, each governed by a iuridicus with administrative and judicial duties.
See' de Martino Storia 4.2.696-700; R. Thomsen, The Italic Regions from
Augustus to the Lombard Invasion (Copenhagen, IS47), 153-176; W. Eck7 Die
staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Mnchen, 1979), 247-
271; W. Simshuser, "Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der Provinzialverfassung
Italiens," ANRW 2.13.432-433.

23.1 Xauocvexcoaav Se uiff8v xvxe: Dio here contemplates

extending a basic uniformity to the entire bureaucracy, witfi all officials outside
the city structured in a hierarchy of salaried posts (one resembling the future
Byzantine officialdom). As Bleicken points out (Hermes 90 [1962], 452-453),
the tendencies toward such uniformity already existed in the Severan period.
Dio, however, is concerned here principally with ending bureaucratic waste by
replacing the customary unlimited expense accounts, especially of provincial
governors (opioxcp Kal aTa8uf|t(p avaXcouaxi) with fixed budgets.
Compare his similar concerns regarding quits at 52.25.2.

23.2-3 With Dio's outline of the tours of duty of provincial governors, cf.
CAH 10.213: "The system of appointment which prevailed throughout the
Principate is to a large extent the creation of Augustus." Proconsuls served for
one year (53.13.2); imperial legati had no fixed term, though their tours of duty
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 195
were in Dio's time on the average about two years, and very rarely above three.
See Barbieri Albo 554-561; de Martino Storia 4.2.805-808, 811-815. Dio here
recommends regularization and lengthening of all terms of provincial governors
to three to five years. See Millar Study 114.

24.1-6 tti epl o fpoup fipxeiv: Dio proposes to reduce the

power of the praefectus praetorio. His admonition about the officemat there
always be two prefects, and that restrictions be imposed on their powerarises
from drastic aberrations in the traditional character of the post since the time of
Augustus and Tiberius (cf. 55.10.10). Under Commodus at one time there were
three praefecti praetorio (SHA Comm. 6, 12-13), and three again under Severus
Alexander (Zos. 1.11.2-3; cf. Dio 80.2.2). Moreover, under Septimius Severus
there was for a time a single praefectus praetorio, C. Fulvius Plajitianus, who
acted as virtual prime minister and vice-emperor. Dio, of course, knew the
meteoric career of this ambitious friend of Septimius Severus, who was sole
prefect from 197 to 205, except briefly in 199 when Q. Aemilius Saturninus
was his colleague (CIL 6.224 = ILS 2185; Dio 75.14.1-2). SeelPIR2 F 554;
Kleine Pauly 2.635-636 = Fulvius 8; A. Birley, Septimius Severus (London,
1971), 294-2%. Dio was concerned also about the enormous accretion in the
judicial power of this highest equestrian office in the Severan period: this reached
a climax in the appointment of the jurist Ulpian as prefect under Severus
Alexander.

24.3 The third century also marked the apogee of the military power of the
praefecti praetorio. In the Severan period their military authority in Italy was,
in Dio's experience, extensive, but not as comprehensive as he states. They
commanded, besides the cohortes praetorianae, the quits singulares, the castra
peregrinorum, and the classes praetoriae, but not the imperial fleets at Misenum
and Ravenna, nor the vigiles, nor Legio II Parthioa at: Ajbanum. See RE
22.2409-2411 = Praefectus Praetorio (Ensslin); cf. Mommseh StR 2.1119; S.J.
de Laet, "Les pouvoirs militaires des prfets du prtoire et leur dveloppement
progressif," RBPh 25 (1946-1947), 509-554; Campbell Emperor 115.
Dio here acknowledges (24.4) that the expanding duties of the praetorian
prefects required assistants, called by him wtapxoi, i.e., vice-prefects (in Latin,
vie agentes praefectorum praetorii), a post that already existed under Caracalla.
See A. Stein, "Stellvertreter der Praefecti Praetorio," Hermes 60 (1925), 94-103;
cf. Vrind De Vocabulis 9, 92-96, esp. n216, where he follows Mommsen's
suggestion that chapter 24.4 refers to praefecti classium; Mason Greek Terms
94-95.
196 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

24.4 KaioapeioDv: The Caesariani mentioned here by Dio are household

officials of the emperor, all imperial freedmen. See Mart. 9.79; P.Oxy. 477.5
(A.D. 132/133); BGU 1210 109 (A.D. 150-161); P.Tebt. 317.3 (A.D. 174-
175); Magie De Vocabulis 70-71. Vrind, who has collected all references to
Caesariani in Dio (De Vocabulis 129-133), interprets Caesariani to refer to two
types of imperia] freedmen: those in actual service at the time in an imperial
department, and those of some importance but at the moment not assigned to a
particular service (130 n328; cf. 129 n326). Boissevain (ad loc.) properly
rejects Hirschfeld's emendation toticTCOv for the somewhat obscurely written
Xoyov xiv ljoov.

24.5 JtpooTJKOVTa Kal afapitr): Millar (Study 115-116) considers this

a "key" passage: "Dio is attempting to relegate the Prefecture to what was its
original function, the command of the Emperor's praetorium; in light of the fact
that the office had already been held by Papinian and at the time of writing was
held by Opellius Macrinus, whose rise was partly the result of his earnest
application to the law, this proposal is of some significance." Dio's proposals
for the Praetorian Prefecture bear on the date of composition of Maecenas'
speech. Thus Millar, who dates composition early (ea 214), has Dio react
against the careers of the prefects Papinian and Macrinus. But Barnes sees in
52.24.1 (a warning against having more than two prefects) an allusion to the
triple prefecture in 222 of Ulpian, Chrestus, and Flavianus ("The Composition
of Cassius Dio's Roman History," Phoenix 38 [1984], 250; similarly Letta
Ricerche [1979], 169.
In general on the praefecti praetorio, see de Martino Storia 4.1.647-652;
L.L. Howe, The Praetorian Prefect from Commodus to Diocletian (AD. 180-
305) (Chicago, 1942), 21-42; M. Durry, Les cohortes prtoriennes (Paris, 1938;
rpt. 1968), 147-189; Hammond TAPhA 63 (1932), 94; Idem Monarchy 175-
182; RE 22.2391-2426 = Praefectus Praetorio (Ensslin); OCD s.v. "Praefectus
Praetorio;" Millar Study 115.

24.6 WKtoqrXa: praefectus vigilum; the praefectus annonae is JII iox>

avrou xft TE yopt. Dio specifies limited terms of office for these equestrian
officials, both of whom had some judicial powers connected with their
competences. Two-year terms may, in Dio's time, have been the norm. See de
Martino Storia 4.1.652-657.

25.1-3 SioiKTJoei tftv xpnvxmv: Regarding the financial manage-

ment of the empire, while there existed in principle a distinction (as Dio
indicates) between the public treasury (xpfjuaxa TO Sfjuou = aerarium
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 197

publicum) and the imperial treasury (xpTJuoxa x\q pxr\c, = fiscus),

pragmatically the lines between mem were blurred under the Severi: all revenues
were treated as state receipts. Indeed, elsewhere (53.22.3-4) Dio expresses his
perplexity at any distinction between aerarium and fiscus. In the first century,
two senators of praetorian rank served as praefecti in charge of the aerarium;
though praefecti continued to be appointed, from the second century public
revenues were effectively administered entirely by equestrian procuratores a
rationibus (later called rationales), assisted by numerous treasury clerks, mostly
imperial freedmen. See O. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis
auf Diocletian, 2nd ed.(Berlin, 1905), 29-35; F. Millar, "The Fiscus in the First
Two Centuries," JRS 53 (1963), 29-42; Idem, "The Aerarium and its Officials
under the Empire," JRS 54 (1964), 33-40; P.A. Brunt, j'The 'fiscus' and its
Development," JRS 56(1966), 75-91; Millar Emperor 185,197-200.

25S ixicci>v...eXeu8pa>v: The proliferation of equestrian officials

and imperial freedmen in all branches of the fiscal service jin Rome and in each of
the provinces, which began in the first century under Claudiusi is accepted by
Dio as appropriate and efficient. The momentum of appointments of equestrian
procurators was sharply accelerated after Dio's time, until in the reign of
Gallienus all civil and military functions in the provinces were-in their hands.
With Gallienus, equestrians held the highest military posts as legionary
commanders, displacing senators as legates. It was acknowledged that equestrian
commanders were better as enforcers of discipline and protectors of me empire:
See C.W. Keyes, The Rise of the Equits in the Third Century .of the Roman
Empire (Princeton, 1915); Bleicken Hermes 90 (1962), 451-453; Millar
Emperor 69-83; J. Osier, "The Emergence of the Third-Century Equestrian
Military Commanders," Latomus 36 (1977), 674-687; H.-G. Pflaum, "Zur
Reform des Kaisers Gallienus," Historia 25 (19f6), 10^-117. Pflaum (RE
23.1255-1259 = Procurator 2) documents the great increase of equestrian posts in
the administration of Septimius Severus.
t v eXevOpcov: The association of freedmen (TOIOVTOU; cf.
chapter 24.4, Kcuoapeieov T>v...v xi) depanela oow ovxtov) with equestrian
officials is justified by Dio on two grounds: as an incentive toward promotion of
status for them, and because of the morerigorousextraction of evidence possible
from freedmen in cases of official misconduct.

25.6-7 Dio approves of the social mobility of quits into the senatorial order;
which was indeed a characteristic tendency. He accepts as worthy of elevation
into the order centurions of equestrian origin who were directly commissioned as
centurions; his animus is rather directed against the uneducated, lower-class
198 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

centurions promoted from the rank and file (v tq> TetaYHevq) = in ordinem)
who had carried their own baggage, and whom he here sneeringly calls "porters"
and "carriers of charcoal baskets." See B. Dobson, "The Centurionate and Social
Mobility during the Principate," in C. Nicolet and C. Leroy, eds., Recherches
sur les structures sociales dans l'antiquit classique (Paris, 1970), 99-116;
Campbell Emperor 103-104, cf. 340-341. CT. Dio 52.8, 19.4-5n.

26.1-2 S i 8 a o K X o u . . . 8 T | n o o i e w o v T a uu,{o8ou e x o v t e :
"Youths should turn their attention to horsemanship and military training, and
have publicly salaried teachers of each of these." Dio's concern for the education
of the youth of the two upper classes of the empire is a reaction against the
greater egalitarian and levelling tendencies of the Severan dynasty (cf.
Rostovtzeff SEHRE 415, 418-420, 534) and against the'elevation of some
unlettered soldiers to high posts and to membership in the Senate. As V
elsewhere, Dio seeks here to legitimize with Augustan "precedents" his
proposals, in this case for military schools for the elite.
He alludes here, all too sketchily, to Augustus* efforts to give a military
aspect to Roman education by reviving traditional physical and military exercises
for the youth of the senatorial and equestrian orders in advance of their military
service, at the age of seventeen (by meirakion Dio refers to the years from the
assumption of the toga virilis at age 14/15 until age 17 [cf. 51.6.2; 56.36.1]).
Physical exercises and horsemanship in the Campus Martius were emphasized,
and the elite youth paraded at festivals, while younger boys performed the
complex riding display known as lusus Troiae. Cf. Hor. Carm. 1.8; 3.2.1-6,
7.25-28, 24.51-56; Verg. Aen. 7.162-165; 9.603-608; J.-P. Neraudau, La
jeunesse dans la littrature et les institutions de la Rome rpublicaine (Paris,
1979), 368-371; Z. Yavetz, in Millar & Segal Augustus 14-20.
Dio's proposal for state-salaried teachers of horsemanship and military
training for the youth was not implemented. He is not here suggesting the
establishment of a ministry of education: schools for training imperial officials
and civil service officers did not exist in the Roman Empire, though the Flavians
provided subventions to professors of rhetoric (such as Quintilian). Dio here
may also be criticizing the traditional liberal education (of which he himself was
a product), which offered the study of literature and rhetoric to future officials of
the empire. Cf. T.B. Jones, The Silver-Plated Age (Sandoval, 1962), 37-124;
Lewis & Reinhold 2.287, 294-297.
For Dio's proposal, see C. Barbagallo, Lo stato e Vistruzione pubblica
nell'impero romano (Catania, 1911), 12, 22-33, 181-182; H.I. Marrou, A
History of Education in Antiquity (New York, 1956), 400-411; S.L. Mohler,
'The Iuvenes and Roman Education," TAPhA 68 (1937), 442-444; OCD s.v.
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 199
"Iuvenes" (Balsdon); M. Rostowzew, Rmische Bleitesserae, Klio Beiheft 3
(Leipzig, 1905), 61-68; Neraudau, op. cit 369-370.

27.1-5 oxpctTita Bavxou: "standing army." Dio's observations

on the need for and character of a standing army (cf. 56.40.2n) verge on the
banal. In Augustus' time it was still possible to maintain a mobile legionary
force. But Dio has in mind the. garrison frontier force of the third century, at a
time when it was no longer possible to employ mobile reinforcements at critical
times. Compare, for example, on the earlier "strategically mobile armies of me
Principate," E.N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire
(Baltimore, 1976), 7-50.
Unlike Herodian (3.8.5), Dio is here not critical of Septimius Severus'
policy regarding the army, though it is true that he later reports Severus' last
words to his sons as "Live in harmony, enrich the troops] and scorn everybody
else" (76.15.2). Dio was, of course, deeply concerned about the costs to his
social class of the increased military budget, and about; the weakening of the
traditional discipline in the army (cf. Gabba RSI 71 [1^59], 380-381), but he
was also concerned about the security of the empire, and it was i$ fact Septimius
Severus who reestablished the attractiveness of service in die army as a career,
and who created a new type of mobile reserve force based in Italy. See E. Birley,
"Septimius Severus and the Roman Army," Epigraphische Studien 8 (1969), 63-
82; R.E. Smith, "The Army Reforms of Septimius Severus," Historiafll
(1972), 481-500. !

27.5 ex XtyOTeiac: On the problem of brigandage in the Roman Empire,

see Rostovtzeff SEHRE 411-413; R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Oi der
(Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 255-268; F. Millar, "The^WSW of the Golden As^,"
JRS 71 (1981), 66-67; P.A. Mackay, "KLEPHT(KA: The Tradition of the
Tales of Banditry in Apuleius," G&R 10 (1963), 14?-152; .D. Shaw, "Bandits
in the Roman Empire," P&P 105 (1984), 3-52. It isjnotewcjrthy that brigandage
and piracy were common plot elements in Greek novels, which flourished in the
second and third centuries. Noteworthy instances can be found in Achilles
Tatius' Leucippe and Cleitophon and in Heliodorus' Aethiopica.

28.1-4 x66ev ov %pr\]iaxa: (28.1) "Whence the money?" The massive

expenditures on the soldiers motivated Dio's extraordinary proposal here (never,
of course, implemented)" that most imperial properties (28.3: enjuata t a v
T(p 8r|uoot<j> vta), especially the vast landed estates of the crown, be made
productive by being sold to private owners, and that the capital generated be lent
at interesta revolutionary concept. Dio was partly influenced by the crisis in
200 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
agricultuie/.under the Severi (on the economic situation in Caracalla's reign, cf.
77.9.1-7; Gabba Studi [1962], 51). T. Pekry ("Studien zur rmischen
Whrungs-i und Finanzgeschichte von 161 bis 235 n. Chr. " Historia 8 [1959],
467-468) suggestsamong other possibilitiesthat the sale of state domains
was proposed becauseihere was much idle imperial land in the third century, a
situation made more acute as the result of labour shortages. Under Dio's plan,
renewal of agriculture would be launched by sale of public lands to small and
medium cultivators, with the state as a sort of agrarian bank, using the proceeds
to provide massive agricultural credits at low interest (cf. Gabba Studi [1962],
54-55, 58). There are similarities to the state credit provisions under Severus
Alexander (SHA Alex. 21.2, 26.2, 40.2). But Dio's class interests are
paramount: he was alarmed at the demagogic expenditures on behalf of the troops
in the time of the Severi, which were financed by exactions in the form of
confiscations of estates, capital levies (cf. 74.8.4, 9.4), and other types* of
impositions through, for example, aurum coronarium, a severe drain on the
resources of the propertied classes and the cities of the empire (cf. 77.9). See
Rostovtzeff SEHRE 417; Gabba Studi (1962), 47, 49, 53-54, 67; Millar Study
110-111. On the immense scale and varied character of the wealth of the
emperor, see Millar Emperor 133-201; Frank Economic Survey 5.4-18; I.
.Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics, Collection Latomus 142
(Bruxelles, 1975), 357-371; M. Reinhold, The Golden Age of Augustus
(Toronto, 1978), 113-115. In the third century these properties were inventoried
in the aerarium, Patrimonium, and res privata (Gabba Studi [1962], 55 n40; cf.
Hammond Monarchy 456-457).

28.5-29.3 Reform of taxation. The fiscal irresponsibility and capital

confiscations of Commodus and the Severi had, in Dio's view, undermined the
economic stability and confidence of the upper, propertie classes. L. de Blois
("The Third Century Crisis and the Greek Elite in the Roman Empire," Historia
33 [1984], 358-377) properly points out that upper-class Greeks like Dio reacted
defensively to symptoms of the great crisis of the third centurysymptoms such
as the rise of uneducated upstarts, shifts of power to new social groups, massive
exactions and public expenditureswithout an overall grasp of the weaknesses
and shifting pressures to which some emperors responded with drastic measures.
Dio here proposes new ways of spreading the burden of taxation so as to
ease the drain on the wealth of the large landed proprietors. His solution is
revolutionafy*--universal, uniform taxation on all forms of property, and the
plugging of loopholes. He also proposes a balanced budget, but his method of
calculating the budget gap (rcv to XEAOV) by estimating revenues and
expenditures is simplistic.
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 201
At 28.6 Dio distinguishes, quite properly, between tributum (<popov) on
landed and other personal property, and vectigalia (teXn), i.e., indirect taxes (for
the distinction, cf. 38.1.5; 49.15.3; 52.29.1). His proposal to end tax
exemptions is all-embracing: uriSvrx aizSsv tcXf) evai, UT\ iSubrny, UTJ
ofjuov, "none is to be tax-exempt, neither private person nor community." Thus
two of his "proposals" may actually be an expression of support for reforms of
Severus Alexander (but cf. CAH 12.64-65), especially therigorouscollection of
taxes, and an end of the centuries-old exemption of Italy from tributum soli. In
this connection Dio was aware, of course, that after the Constitutio Antoniniana
Italy's favoured position, fiscally and socially, came to an end.
In 28.7 (Kkoykaq TOV itiTpoitevoovia KaoTaxodi noiftoai,
"appoint as tax collectors those assigned to be in charge of each district") Dio
means procurators (cf. 53.15.3; Mason Greek Terms 143). (Philo [Leg. 30.199]
refers to a popcov KXoyet> in Judaea, but he probably means a procurator of the
vast imperial estates there.) i
With 28.8 xax' X{YOV...V ta teaiv, "in small installments," cf.
Plb. 18.44.7; Zon. 9.16.12. I !
In 29.2 (oi uv apxovte oi jtvtpojteovTe oi Se oipaxeuucvoi)
Dio acknowledges that the main beneficiaries of the tax revenues of the empire
were governors (from the senatorial order), procurators (from the equestrian
order), and soldiers.

30.1 "KOTaKojiei xorj itoX.v-ceA.eici: "adorn it with all opulence."

Dio's exception of Rome in his plea for austerity is a concession not only to the
importance of the imperial capital as the world's image of grandeur, bbuajso to
the vast expenditures the Severan dynasty lavished on the city.

30.2 TOV xap' f||v 8r)u,ov: "our populace in Rome."1 Dio extends his
injunction that assemblies (demoi) everywhere hjs denied any governing
competence, so as to exclude also the populace of Rome foomjall participation in
elective, judicial, and administrative matters. In this Dio appears to be beating a
dead horse (but cf. 52.15.2-4n), though the comitia did meet, even if proforma,
in his time (58.20.4).

30.3-10 Warnings against unproductive expenditures. By

condemning extravagance in the provincial cities, Dio expresses here his
concerns for the drain on the property of the wealthy in the empire occasioned by
local benefactions, and the consequent economic effect on the native cities.
Dio's proposals to stop construction of unnecessary public buildings and the
proliferation of public games, and to restrict the number of professional athletes
202 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
and their pensions in order to keep the games within bounds, are not hew! Cf.
Pliny Ep. 10.39-40, 112-113; SC de sumptibus ludorum gladiatorum
minuendis, A.D. 176/178 {FIRA2 1.294-300 49), which was published hi the
provinces, with a warning about labantem civitatium station ("the declining state
of the cities") and praecipitantes iam in ruinas principalium virorum fortunas
("the fortunes of the leading men already collapsing in ruins"). See Friedlnder
Sittengeschichte 2.1-160; Rostovtzeff SEHRE 142-150, 387-388; R.F.
Newbold, "Cassius Dio and the Games," AC 44 (1975), 589-604, esp. 592 nl4,
601-604. On the continuation of such local benefactions in the fourth century,
see S. Mrozek, "Munificentia Privata in den Stdten Italiens der sptrmischen
Zeit," Historia 27 (1978), 355-368. On Dio's warning to cities to reduce their
expenditures at risk of civic decay, see M. Ichikawa, "Cassius Dio's Economic
Proposals," JCS 31 (1983), 82-92 (with English rsum).
V
30.4-6 |if|... O(TT)OIV BdvoTOV Jtaovv xXcb xo y v
Ttva vtK^oaoi Sioodai: "a lifetime pension should not be given indis-
criminately to all who have won some victory in a contest." As a matter of
economic exigency, Dio would restrict grants of lifetime pensions (aixt\aiq
Ovaxo or eioixo) paid by cities out of their own public treasuries (to
riuaiov): only their own citizens who were victors at the Olympian and
Pythian Games and those games held in Rome should be eligible (to yp
xoiowu uvou oiTEaGai Se). Compare Pliny (Ep. 10.118-119), who
inquires of Trajan about undue claims by athletes for pensions for victories in
iselasticis certaminibus, i.e., contests whose victors entered their native cities in
triumph (cf. 51.1.2n and Appendix 10, "The Actian Games"): Trajan intervened
to restrict such pensions. See A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny. A
Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 728-731; E.G. Hardy, C.
Plinii Caecilii Secundi Epistulae ad Traianum cum Eiusdem Responsis (London,
1889), ad loc.
See Appendix 17 for "The Economic Burden of Athletes' Pensions."

30.4, 7-8 lxico5pouia: Dio's proposal to abolish chariot races

unconnected with athletic contests (cf. 51.1.2; 53.1.5; 60.6.2) in all cities
(except the Circensian Games in Rome) was motivated by both the expensehis
social class footed the billand the passions aroused by them (though he
injects, as a sweetener, the need to reserve the best horses for the military). But
indeed chariot races were exhibited without interruption throughout the imperial
period in numerous cities of the empire. Cf., for example, Dio Chrys. Or.
32.41-43, 74-80 (Alexandria); Friedlnder Sittengeschichte 2.21-50; A.
Cameron, Circus Factions (Oxford, 1976), 211-212.
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 203

30.9-10 |MfJTe...V0|iio}iaTa...{8i: Dio's recommendation to abolish

separate coinages by cities of the empire is in effect a plea for monetary
uniformity. The vast flow of "Greek imperials" in the East through local city
and provincial issues (for which permission was readily granted by the emperor)
was connected with religious festivals, athletic games, imperial visits, payment
of auxiliary or Roman troops on campaign, etc. Between the time of Augustus
and Aurelian, such bronze small coins were issued by about 530 separate mints;
the number of mints reached a peak in the reign of Septimius Severus. It is a
mistake to view this massive circulation of coins as a sign of prosperity. They
constituted a bronze token coinage issued everywhere solely as a convenience for
the local marketplace, with restricted range of travel. The issues declined
markedly after Dio wrote, partly as a result of inflation, which made small coins
impractical, and partly as a result of the issuance of the antoninianus coinage by
Caracalla, which overstated the value of its bullion content, encouraged the
hoarding of bronze, and eventually brought an end to the activity pf local mints.
This process was accelerated by the debasement of silver coinage, especially from
A.D. 238 after the antoninianus, having been discontinued under Elagabalus and
Severus Alexander, was reintroduced in debased form. Thus monetary pluralism
came to an end because of economic chaos, not policy, and Dio's conception of
monetary uniformity materialized through the exigencies of economic forces.
See H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, 2nd ed. (London, 1960), 188-207; T. Pekaxy,
Historia 8 (1959), 486-487; T.B. Jones, "A Numismatic Riddle: The So-Galled
Greek Imperials," PAPhS 107 (1963), 308-347; J.P. Callu, La politique
montaire des empereurs romains de 238 311, Bibi, Ea Fr. d'Ath. et de Rome
214 (Paris, 1969); Idem, "Approches numismatiques de l'histoire du 3e, sicle
(238-311)," ANRW 2.2.594-613; M. Crawford, "Finance, Coinage and Money
from the Severans to Constantine," ANRW 2.2.56,0-593.1 Dio's repressive
proposalsregardingprovincial cities may stem from his experience as curator of
Pergamum and Smyrna in 218-221 (H. Mattingly, History 50 [1965], 207). On
the relationship of this to the date of composition of the Agrippa-Maecenas
debate, see on 52.14.1-40.2, Maecenas' Speech: Date of Composition.

30.9 x p e o e i a v : In the interest of economy and also of reducing

"lobbying" at Rome, Dio would restrict the sending of embassies by cities to
Rome, permitting them only in the case of matters involving a judicial decision
(SUXYVJOIC = cognitio). In other matters provincials would be limited to
seeking help through (and with the approval of) the governor by petitions sent to
the emperor (iaxn = petitio) and from his rescripts (rokpvoi = rescriptum).
Cf. Millar Emperor 367-368.
204 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

31.1-32.3 t o ottvSpiov: Dio's concern here is for the power of the

princeps (for Dio defends the monarchy and the centralization of the imperial
administration), not for any increase in the competence and powers of the Senate,
but rather the maintenance of its dignity as traditional "partner" in a harmonious
alliance between Senate and princeps. Ever since Augustus' time, it was
customaryand more efficientfor embassies (whether from cities, provinces,
client kings, or foreign powers) to seek audience with the princeps, so that the
Senate's role declined visibly and had effectively lapsed by the middle of the
second century (Talbert Senate 411-425, esp. 424). But Dio is concerned here
with maintaining the tradition of partnership by insisting on symbolic (note
SOKEV at 31.1) visits of such embassies to the Senate. Similarly, with regard
to legislation, by the second century the emperors were the primary sources of
law, through their orationes and constitutiones. Dio's proposal in this regard
amounts to a suggestion that all such legislation of the emperor be formally
promulgated in the form of senatus consulta. Dio "was pleading for a return to
me practices of Augustus," who adhered to Republican tradition by referring his
measures to the Senate for approval (P.A. Brunt, "The Role of the Senate in the
Augustan Regime," CQ 34 [1984], 423, 426-427,444). His injunction that the
Senate should have jurisdiction in capital cases involving its own members
(except for revolt of a military commander: chapter 31.10) is the most serious
proposal of them all, for it was motivated by the spate of executions in his own
time, by Commodus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Elagabalus. Cf.
Bleicken Hermes 90 (1962), 458-459, 463-464; Millar Study 117. On the
relation of this proposal to the date of composition of the Agrippa-Maecenas
debate, see on 52.14.1-40.2, Maecenas' Speech: Date of Composition.

31.3-4 The referral to the Senate of serious charges against senators and their
families, without prior decision by the emperor or his appointees (like the
praefectus praetorio), especially where the death penalty was involved,
represented the position of senatorial moderates in Dio's day. The practice of
senatorial trial of criminal cases in such instances, with the princeps standing
aloof, followed the precedent of the emperors of the second century (Garnsey
Status 43-49). Thus Dio, who here sets forth the hierarchical principle of voting
order in the Senate, insists that persons of senatorial rank be tried not by the
emperor, nor by jurors of lower rank in the public glare of the jury courts, nor in
the senatorial court by fellow members of lower rank (cf. 52.32.2-3). Cf. W.
Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History (=
Rmische Rechtsgeschichte, 6th ed., trans. J.M. Kelly), 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1973),
71.
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 205

31.8 oexT = oeotOToc (augustus). Cf. 53.16.8. Did Dio use oent
here because Octavian had not yet assumed the title Augustus, bestowed in 27
B.C.?

33.1 Appeals and Referrals to the Emperor. Dio specifies here

appeals from governors of provinces, including the Prefect of Egypt (ueivcov
pxvtoov); from procurators of smaller provinces (icitpnmv; cf. 53.13.7,
15.4; Magie De Vocabulis 27, 111-112; Mason Greek Terms 142-143); and
from the praefectus urbi (cf. 52.21.l-2n), vice-censor (cf. 52.213-ln), praefectus
annonae, and praefectus vigilum. If io\> Te tv otov niOKOTtovvTO Kal xo
vv>KToq>uXaKo>v"co are in apposition to the preceding xrv rcpxiov, then Dio
omits specific reference to the praefecti praetorio (so, e.g., Cary in his Loeb
translation); but eTcapgoi used alone is Dio's standard'term for Praetorian
Prefects (e.g., 55.10.10; cf. Vrind De Vocabulis 97-99, 117 n288), and it seems
likely that he intended them to be understood here. After all, he desired the
jurisdiction of the powerful equestrian praefecti praetorio of his time to be
sharply curtailed (cf. above, 52.21.1-2, 24.5n) and be made strictly subject to the
emperor's jurisdiction, and he here proposes that no official possess absolute and
final jurisdiction except the emperor.
On the adaptation to the sense in Greek translations of Roman institutions,
compare Augustus' laudatio funebris over Agrippa, where vitccpxeia is used for
the Latin provincias. We should expect itotpxeia, but the sense required the
more general "administrative areas" rather than "provinces," and so the translator
used iitapxeia instead. See B. Kramer and R. Hbner, eds., Klner Papyri
(P.Kln) 1, Papyrologica Coloniensia 7.1 (Kln, 1976), 35; cf. H.J. Mason,
"The Roman Government in Greek Sources: The Effect of Literary Theory on
the Translation of Official Titles," Phoenix 24 (1970), 150-159; Idem Greek
Terms 135-138.

33.2 On the dual-penalty treatment of honestiores and humiliores, and the

exception of quits from senatorial jurisdiction, see above, 52.22.3; cf. Bleicken
Hermes 90 (1962), 457 n3. Criminal cases involving equestrian defendants, as
well as centurions from the ranks and decurions (iSioraov TB>V jcpcareov), were
to be subject to the emperor's primary jurisdiction (cf. 53.17.6); Gamsey Status
71-73; Mommsen StR 2.9T'1 nl. Augustus as judge, whether of first instance
or on appeal, sat with a judicial council. In the third century, with growing
demand for both uniform interpretation of the law and improved rescript service,
and with the great volume of work, the rescript service became a professional
206 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

function and was put into the hands of equestrian secretaries a libellis. See T.
Honor, Emperors and Lawyers (London, 1981), 2-5,23, 54-103.

33.3-4 The Imperial Consilium. Dio, looking back to Augustan

modalities as constituting the ideal monarchy, suggests for the Severan period an
"Augustan" type of consilium (Bleicken Senatsgericht 91). He thus
acknowledges the efficacy of "cabinet government" for the princeps: i.e., a sort
of privy council of high ranking senators and quits. The Augustan consilium
down to A.D. 13, a small, rotating, probouleutic group of magistrates and
senators to advise on legislation (Suet. Aug. 35.3; Dio 53.21.4-5; cf. 56.28.2-
3), lapsed with Tiberius. This "Augustan" type of consilium was revived as a
sort of regency council for Severus Alexander when he assumed the Principate at
the age of thirteen. This more comprehensive Severan consilium of amici
principis ("friends of the emperor") dealt not only with legislation but also with
war policy (cf. SHA Alex. 16). See Hammond TAPhA 63 (1932), 88-102; J.
Crook, Consilium Principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus
to Diocletian (Cambridge, 1955), 86-91, 116; de Martino Storia 4.1.671-680;
Millar Emperor 268-269.

33.5 o u v e p Y O . . . KOI uxnpETac K TCDV ixxaiv: "co-

workers...and assistants from the equestrians." Dio here does not report the
Augustan system of using imperial freedmen and slaves as aides of the imperial
household, but rather documents the important role of the equestrians in the
administrative bureaucracy as institutionalized by the Antonine monarchy, under
which the imperial secretaries were regularized. The most important of these
were equestrian secretaries and aides (for example) in the bureaux a cognitionibus
(for judicial work), ab epistulis (for correspondence), and a libellis (for petitions
from private persons), and in that dealing with embassies from cities. See
Hammond Monarchy 453; Friedlnder Sittengeschichte 4.26-46; Miliar Emperor
83-110.

33.6-34.11 Dio here assumes acknowledgement of the conventional virtues

and behaviour of the good king as role model and providential ruler (cf. 44.2;
52.11-12n; on 52.14.1-40.2 ["On Kingship"]). In 34.2 Dio employs the
conventional image of the emperor as acting, as it were, in the theatre of the
whole world (cf. Suet Aug. 99.1 on Augustus' purported death-bed words in
this vein).

33.7 On echoes from Thuc. 3.42.5 here in Dio, cf. Kyhnitzsch De

Contionibus 35.
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS" SPEECH 207

33.7-9 Here Dio reveals himself the Roman bureaucrat, experienced in dealing
with superiors and inferiors, though he justifies such management as serving the
common good.

34.7-8 qroeeD: For Dio's concept of human nature, see Appendix 1.

35.1-6 Emperor worship. Chapters 35-36 are analyzed as "a most

remarkable text on the imperial cult" by G.W. Bowersock ("Greek Intellectuals
and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D.," in W. den Boer, ed., Le
culte des souverains dans l'Empire romain, Entretiens sur l'Antiquit Classique
19 [Vandoeuvres-Genve, 1973], 202-206). Greek intellectuals of the second
century were complacent about the imperial cult. But the abuses and antics of
the religious fanatics Commodus and Elagabalus evoked from Dio here explicitly
the unspoken views of earlier Greek intellectuals who did not believe in the
divinity of a living emperor. Cf. F. Taeger, "Zum Kampf gegen den antiken
Herrscherkult," Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft 32 (1935), 282-292; Gabba
S/ 71 (1959), 323; D.M. Pippidi, "Dion Cassius et la religion ds empereurs,"
Revue historique du sud-est-europen 19 (1942), 407-418.
Dio's image of the ideal king is in the Stoic tradition: true immortality is
won through virtue and good works (35.3: Si xSsv yaQSsv Ip-yoov), not by a
show of hands (35.5: xeiporovT|xo S' OV>8EIrcamote8eo yvEto, "No one
ever became a god by a show of hands"). His rhetorical turns of phrase, such as
"the hearts of men" (35.3) and "the whole earth" as the shrine of the just king
(35.5), are taken from the images used by Thucydides in Pericles' Funeral
Oration (esp. 2.43.3, "the whole earth is the tomb of famous men;" see
Kyhnitzsch De Contionibus 39); cf. Tac. Ann. 4.38.
Dio's injunction against a formal cult and temples of the living emperor
conforms to the religious policy of Augustus, at least as regards the western part
of the empire (on temples of Roma and Augustus in the eastern provinces, see
51.20.6-8n). It is noteworthy that in the reign of Alexander Severus there was
apparently areserveon the part of the army in dedications to the emperor as a
god (cf. Jard tudes 27). In his own choice of words for honours to the emperor
in Rome and Italy, Dio limits himself to ripwa and iaBeoi Ttua or the like,
rather than speaking of "temples and gods" (cf. chapter 35.5; 56.41.9). For all
his scepticism, Dio had a pragmatic attitude to emperor worship, accepting it as
a tribute to "good" emperors and as a contribution to unity of the empire in
remote regions, but deploring extravagant practices. See A. Piatkowski,
"Cassius Dio ber den Kaiserkult," Klio 66 (1984), 599-604.
208 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
Dio was concerned, in part, also with the economic burden involved in
emperor worship. His injunction against images in gold or silver for the
emperor is undoubtedly an aspect of his anxiety for the empire's economic
distress (cf. chapter 35.3-4), caused in part by the concentration of vast
unproductive wealth owned by the imperial treasury (see above, 52.28. l-4n). On
Augustus' melting down of silver statues of himself in Rome (RG 24.2; Suet.
Aug. 52) because the metal was needed for coinage, see T. Pekry, "Statuae
Meae...Interpretationen zu Res gestae divi Augusti 24," in E. Lefvre, ed.,
Monumentum Chiloniense: Studien zur augusteischen Zeit (Amsterdam, 1975),
96-108.

36.1-3 oeov Kalb, xh xaxpia: "worship according to the ancestral

traditions." Dio's counsel on the maintenance of Roman religious traditions is
typical of his emphases on moderation and political stability, but this comment
is directed mostly against religious innovators and extremists of the time, in
particular the a8eoi (among whom the Christian and Jew were frequently
included), the YOTI (sorcerer), and the uayeDTric (magician). Cf. Jard Etudes
29 n2; J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Continuity and Change in Roman Religion
(Oxford, 1979), 226-227; 126-139, on magic in Roman public life.
Liebeschuetz comments that "the value of Dio's History as a source for the study
of religious trends is limited" (229). The tendencies of the third century were,
indeed, against Dio's restraint and traditionalism: the influx of mystery religions
and related beliefs was massive. Perhaps Dio is here exhibiting hostility to the
orgiastic cults brought in by Elagabalus. Hence his emphasis on the Roman
haruspices and augures, who maintained the state religion. Cf. Lewis &
Reinhold 2.568-601.

36.4 On Areius and Athenodorus, Stoic philosopher-teachers in Augustus'

entourage from his youth, see 51.16.4n; 56.43.2n. Dio is here referring to the
philosophic opposition to the emperors by Stoics and Cynics. "This is almost
certainly a later view and not Augustan" {CAH 11.10 nl). Neither group
favoured the return to a republic: the Stoics mobilized ideological opposition to
the tyrant, supporting the good king (bonus princeps), while the Cynic street-
philosophers harboured contempt for all authority. See, e.g., Rostovtzeff
SEHRE 113-120; J.M.C. Toynbee, "Dictators and Philosophers in the First
Century A.D.," G&R 13 (1944), 43-58; E. Cizek, L'poque de Nron et ses
controverses idologiques (Leiden, 1972), passim.
 14.1-40.2: MAECENAS' SPEECH 209
37.2-4 On the institution of informers (delatores) and the problems associated
with them in the imperial period, see, e.g., RE 4.2427-2428 = Delator
(Kleinfeiler); CAH 10.627-629.

37.5 axeXevdepov: On the role of imperial freedmen, see A.M. Duff,

Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928; rpt, 1958); G. Boulvert,
Esclaves et affranchis impriaux sous le haut-empire romain: Rle politique et
administratif (Napoli, 1970); P.R.C. Weaver, "Freedmen Procurators in the
Imperial Administration," Historia 14 (1965), 460-469; Idem, Familia Caesaris:
A Social Study of the Emperor's Freedmen and Slaves (Cambridge, 1972); K.
Wachtel, "Sklaven und Freigelassene in der staatlichen Finanzverwaltung des
rmischen Kaiserreiches," AAntHung 15 (1967), 341-346.

37.7-11 On the emperor as moderator and protector of the masses, and on the
"true democracy" of the Roman Empire, see on 52.14.1-15.1.

37.9 On the expeditious settlement of cases before the emperor and the
praefectus urbi, cf. 52.21.l-2n. On the restraints to be put by the central
administration upon cities of the empire, see above, 52.30.3-lOri.

37.10 On the mutual rivalries of cities, see typical instances in Lewis &
Reinhold 2.365-366. On the assumption by cities of honorary titles without
authorization in Dio's time, see 54.23.8.

3 8 3 X.yovov...q>povEv: With this antithesis between words and thought,

there reappears Dio's conventional contrast between alleged and real reasons for
human behaviour. It embodies also a revealing commentary on the intellectual
restraints imposed by the Principate: men are to be judged not even by what they
do (or say), but by "what they are likely to think." Cf. the similar pattern in
Tac. Hist. 1.1.4, concerning the time of Trajan: rata temporum felicitate, ubi
sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere liceat, "a rarely happy time when a man
may think what he wants and say what he thinks."

39.3 xatpa...o<Dtipa: On the traditional virtues associated with the

image of the Roman emperor since Augustus' time, see M.P. Charlesworth,
"The Virtues of a Roman Emperor," PBA 23 (1937), 111-114; Millar Study
111.

40.1 Kcttoapo.: For "Caesar" as part of the imperial titulature, cf. Magie
De Vocabulis 63-64; Hammond Monarchy 58-60.
210 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

40.2 tf|v xov TOKpiopo,: On the praenomen "Imperator," see below,

52.41.3-4n. Compare aeioSai ac with the title "Augustus" (Zeaatoc):
53.16.8.

41.1-43.2: EVENTS OF THE YEAR 29 B.C.

41.2 Kai Tiva Kal t o j i e t a t a v T o p o u o i xotfjaai

KatXtxev: "he left some reforms to those who should rule afterwards to put
into effect." With this clause Dio acknowledges the non-Augustan aspects of the
programme of reform that he puts into Maecenas' mouth, but at the same time
claims for his proposals that they are in the spirit of Augustus, in order to
validate their authority.
6 'Aypimtac: Mention of Agrippa as co-worker of Augustus seenfcd
appropriate to Dio because he had presented him in the dialogue with Maecenas
as advocate of a return to a republic.

41.3-4 TT|V t o v atOKpdtopo niK\r\oiv inBexo K.T.A,.: "[in

the year in which he was consul for the fifth time and] assumed the title
'Imperator,' not the title as bestowed by the troops on victorious generals,
according to the ancient custom, ...but that other one that signifies the holding
of power, as it was voted to his father Caesar and to the sons and descendants of
Augustus" (cf. 43.44.2-3). Regarding acclamations as imperator, Augustus was
hailed twenty-one times (Tac. Ann. 1.9.2; RG 4.1: appellatus sum viciens et
semel imperator). Though Augustus in fact did not personally command a field
army after his eighth acclamation as imperator in 25 B.C. (following the
Spanish victory), yet between 20 B.C. and A.D. 12/13 he was hailed imperator
thirteen more times (IX-XXI). See T.D. Barnes, "The Victories of Augustus,"
JRS 64 (1974), 2.1-26.
But Dio is in error in stating that Augustus was voted the title "Imperator"
qua Emperor. He is quick here to associate Octavian's decision to accept the role
of monarch (after the imaginary debate between Agrippa and Maecenas) with the
later practice of marking the historic beginning of an emperor's rule by
proclaiming him "Imperator." Manuwald proposed {Dio 83 n35), persuasively,
the deletion of the comma traditionally placed after UJtateuoe, so that the date
of Augustus' consulship29serves for Dio merely to date the beginning of
the monarchy. On the various dates given by Dio for the beginning of
Octavian's monarchic rule, see 51.1.1-2n; 52.1.In; Appendix 15, "The
Beginning of Augustus' Rule." See also Appendix 16, "On the Praenomen
'Imperator'."
 41.1-43.2: EVENTS OF THE YEAR 29 B. C. 211

42.1-4 TiiMi-teoa ofcv tip 'Aypixxq: Dio's usage of xi\u\xe\>aa<;

("became censor") accords with his (and the Greek) practice of not distinguishing
between the magistracy and the magisterial power (cf. 53.32.5-6n; RG 6.2,
where the Greek translation refers to tribunicia potestas as pxn)- The power by
virtue of which Octavian, together with Agrippa, conducted the lectio senatus of
29 was a special grant of censoria potestas, which spanned 29 and 28 (Agrippa
was not consul until 28). Cf. Fasti Venusini under 28 B.C. (= lit. 13.1.255):
Imp. Caesar VI, M. Agrippa II. Idem censoria potest(ate) lustrum fecer(unt);
Suet. Aug. 27.5: sine censurae honore censum tamen populi ter egit. In Res
Gestae Augustus does not mention censorial power as the basis for his review of
Senate membership (8.2: senatum ter legi, bluntly). In fact, since Octavian was
consul in 29 he could not be censor, he achieved his purpose, as at other times,
by separating the power from the office. It is noteworthy also that Dio does not
mention here the census of Roman citizens; as an annalist he sets it in its proper
year, 28 B.C. (see 53.1.3).
For the lectio senatus by Augustus, see Reinhold Agrippa 68-70, n35;
E.G. Hardy, "Lectio Senatus and Census under Augustus," CQ 13 (1919), 43-
46; F. Blumenthal, "Zur zensorischen Ttigkeit des Augustus," Klio 9 (1909),
497-498; Holmes Architect 261-262; A.H.M. Jones, "The Censorial Powers of
Augustus," in Studies in Roman Government and Law (New York, 1960), 21-
26; T.A. Abele, Der Senat unter Augustus (Paderborn, 1907; rpt. 1967), 4-13;
Hammond Principale 29-30, 88-101; A.E. Astin, "Augustus and Censoria
Potestas," Latomus 22 (1963), 226-235; J. Suolahti, The Roman Censors: A
Study on Social Structure, Ann. Acad. Scient. Fenn., Ser. B, 117 (Helsinki,
1963), 496-500. On Augustus and the senatorial order, see also C. Nicolet,
"Augustus, Government, and the Propertied Classes," in Millar & Segal
Augustus 91-93.
In RG 8.2 Augustus refers to three revisions of the rolls of the Senate
(Suet. Aug. 35 mentions only two). He supervised this unpleasant task in order
to achieve qualitative improvement in the Senate, something Dio himself
fervently hoped for in his own time (see above, 52.25,6-7). Dip states that there
were even many jteoi ("common soldiers") in the Senate in 29: he elsewhere
laments the adlectio into the Senate of a common soldier (a centurion from the
ranks) by Macrinus (79.7.2; cf. 42.51.5: in 47 Caesar adlected into the Senate
some new members from among the quits, centurions, and even men of lower
rank).
On the removal from office of Q. Statilius, a tribune, nothing more can be
given: he is otherwise unknown. Of the two senators Dio names as promoted to
consular rank, Gaius Cluvius (/Y2 C 1204) is not known from other sources.
212 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52

About Gaius Furnius, however (PIR2 F 590), we are better informed (cf.
49.17.5, 18.4; 51.2.4-6n): he was a friend of Pompey the Great and of Cicero,
and a partisan of Antony, but he had previously won clemency from Octavian.
For other senators designated in advance as consul but displaced because of the
instability of the times, see P.M. Swan, "The Consular Fasti of 23 B.C. and the
Conspiracy of Varro Murena," HSCPh 71 (1966), 244 n8.
For other lectiones senatus conducted by Augustus, see 54.13-14, 26.3-9,
35.1; 55.13.3.

42.5 T...T&V eUJtatpiSmv yvo: Octavian was granted the power to

add to patrician families (as Caesar had done>by the Lex Saenia of 30/29 B.C.
(Tac. Ann. 11.25.2), and he used it in connection with the lectio senatus. In
addition to Augustus' predilection for the hierarchy of status, there was an urgent
need for patricians, to perform certain religious functions for which they alofH
were eligible. Septimius Severus similarly displayed a favourable attitude
toward patricians. At the end of the Republic there were only about twelve
patrician families left (few more than forty known patricians can be identified for
the year 27 B.C.). Among those elevated by Octavian were men from many new
noble families cast up by the civil wars. From Octavian's time on, patrician
status was determined not by virtue of heredity but by the emperor alone, and
this elite group became the highest stratum of the nobility. In the second
century the patriciate lost its special role as an elite in leadership, and the title
became only a decorative honour. See H.-H. Pistor, Prinzeps und Patriziat in der
Zeit von Augustus bis Commodus (Diss. Albert-Ludwigs- Universitt, Freiburg,
1965), 6-7, 11-28, 159-167; E.T. Salmon, "Augustus the Patrician," in A.J.
Dunston, ed., Essays on Roman Culture: The Todd Memorial Lectures (Toronto,
1976), 3-33; Hammond Monarchy 250-251, 274-276 nn40-50; Syme
Revolution 382; de Laet Samenstelling 258-263, 304-307; Lambrechts
Composition 91.
Dio states (49.43.6) that Octavian made additions to the ranks of patricians
also in 33, by decree of the Senate. But in RG 8.1 Augustus states only that
patriciorum numerum auxi consul quintum iussu populi et senatus. Syme
(Revolution 382 n8) pointed out that Augustus omitted the earlier
supplementation because it "belonged.. .to a period of 'irregularities'."
Dio's famous statement at chapter 42.5"No class is so wasted by civil
wars as the nobility"was a commonplace in seventeenth- and eighteenth-
century England.

42.6-7 ui| eKTijievv: Senators were obliged to maintain a residence in

Rome to assure their availability for meetings of the Senate during the late
 41.1-43.2: EVENTS OF THE YEAR 29 B. C. 213
Republic. Except for travel within the borders of Italy, absence abroad for
personal reasons was by arrangement through the fiction of legatio libera
("unrestricted mission") by action of the Senate. In times of crisis, absent
senators could be recalled by the consuls. See Mommsen StR 3.912-913.
Octavian reaffirmed this system (adding Sicily for permissible travel), but from
his time on permission had to be obtained from the princeps. Claudius in A.D.
49 extended the range of travel to include Narbonese Gaul in the case of senators
from that province (Tac. Ann. 12.23.1; cf. Dio 60.25.6), and this rule was still
in existence in Dio's time. With 42.7 ("those who have any property there are
granted the right to go there without permission as often as they wish"),
compare the same official formula reflected in Tac. Ann. 12.23.1: non exquisita
principis sententia.. .res suas invisere. But, in fact, in the third century most
senators preferred to live in their places of origin while maintaining a pied--terre
in Rome. Shortly after Caracalla, the rule was modified to permit double
domiciles for senators (Paulus Dig. 1.9.11). See A. ChastagnoL, "Le problme
du domicile lgal des snateurs romains l'poque impriale," in Mlanges
offerts Leopold Sdar Senghor (Dakar, 1977), 43-54; cf. Talbert Senate 138-
144, 515.

42.8 y p o u n c u a . . . xaTaKeKCfOKEvou: "he had burned the letters."

For the motif in Dio, cf. 59.4.3. See 53.2.3 for a like measure towards
destroying the vestiges of the triumviral period.

43.1 TTIV Kapxr|66va: Lepidus' assault on Carthage occurred when he was

in control of the province of Africa from 40 to 36 B.C. On Augustus'
enlargement of Caesar's Roman colony at Carthage in 29, see App. Pun. 8.20
[136] (3000 additional settlers). Cf. E/TVSalnumr-Rowait Colonization under
the Republic (Ithaca, 1969), 135-136; F. Vittinghoff, Rmische Kolonisation
und Brgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus, AAWM (1951), 14
(Wiesbaden, 1952), 1327.
'Avtioxov tv Kou,u,aYnvov: Antiochus II of Commagene was son
of Antiochus I (cf. 49.20.3, 22.1-2) and younger brother of the Mithradates II
who was deposed by Octavian after Actium (cf. 51.2.1-3n). Antiochus II was
elevated to the throne as client king in place of his brother, but at once faced
internal dynastic rivalries. See Bowersock Augustus 57-58; for a different
construction, cf. R.D. Sullivan, "The Dynasty of Commagene," ANRW
2.8.775-780.

43.2 TT|V Kaxpiav: Cf. Suet. Aug. 92. The island of Aenaria, exchanged
by Octavian for Capreae, is modern Ischia. Dio's geographic identification of
214 COMMENTARY ON BOOK 52
the island suggests areadershipGreeksand others in the Eastthat did not
know Italy well. He himself knew the region intimately because of residence
mere.
 APPENDIXES*

1. "HUMAN NATURE" IN DIO

Thucydides was me first explicitly to employ "human nature" as a factor in

historical explanation. His terminology varies somewhat, the most common
formulations being r\ avOpamela <pv>oi andTOavftpuncivov (1.22.4, 76.2-3;
2.50.1; 3.39.5, 40.1, 45.3, 7, 82.2; 5.105.2). For Thucydides human nature in
the body politic, like die norm (physis) postulated by Greek medical prac-
titioners, was a fixed, ineluctable modality, not susceptible to change in any
substantial way. This conception made it possible for hub to claim to be able
to distinguish the "real" norms of human behaviour from appearances and
pretexts. In this manner, Thucydides characterized die basic traits of man's "real"
nature as aggression and desire to dominate omers (seej, e.g., 1.76.3; 2.50.1;
3.82.2; 4.61.5; 5.105.2). Most important, Thucydides propounded die view mat
knowledge of a fixed norm of human behaviour warrants prognosis in history
(1.22.4; 3.82.2).
There are basic flaws in Thucydides' formulation of human nature: he leaps
confidently from limited data, random observations, and methodically selected
particular instances, especially from times of crisis, to generalizations elevated
into uni versais and eternal truths; and his observations were limited to adult
males on both sides of the Peloponnesian War, members of the dominant,
decision-making classes. Moreover, the utilitarian function that he ascribed to
history and his studied isolation of moral exempta tend to encourage selection of
data of a general character and die artistic structuring of events to make them
effective exempta. Finally, in his conception of die! nature jof man Thucydides
followed the tendency of Greek draught to generalize character into stereotypes.
In essence, what we possess from die mind of Thuydides is an idiosyncratic,
flawed, limited analysis of human nature, an essentially pessimistic view of
humanity (cf. 3.82.2).
Dio, over 600 years later, was the ultimate heir of Thucydides and of
subsequent historians in antiquity who sought to read human nature into
historical events. Not only does Dio refer explicitly to "human nature" more
frequently than any other ancient historian, but bis terminology is the most
varied. There are about fifteen different formulations of me concept in Dio's
i' '

* For Notes to the Appendixes see pp. 234-240.

216 APPENDIXES

usage, the most frequent being T vSpwtEiov, vpawteio TOTTO, r\ (puai

vSpwjcojv, and f) vGpawtwii pwn.1
Millar's judgement is that most of Dio's comments on human nature are
"no more than commonplaces," which provide Dio often with a comfortable,
"safe" retreat from the need to grapple with the complexities of events.2 Some
are, admittedly, quite general: success motivates the pursuit of further aims (frg.
50.2); it is easier to give comfort to others than to endure suffering oneself
(38.18.3); men become more conscious of their happiness when misfortune
strikes (56.45.1); through children men seek for and achieve a sort of
immortality (56.2.3); men prefer the untried -and the novel to the familiar and
hated (frgs. 12.2; 24.1). Still, his comments about human nature are often
shrewdly applicable to specific events and personalities.
Dio most frequently broods on the dark side of human behaviour: mfco
desire to dominate those willing to be enslaved (frg. 55.1); men are selfish and
resort to violence for self-aggrandizement (52.2.6); men are incapable of enduring
excessive honours (76.5.1); men are greedy for acquiring more, especially when
successful (frg. 17.7); ambition for sole power is not inconsistent with human
nature (52.18.1); those who hold positions of authority for a long time tend to
deviate from ancestral practices (36.31.4); it is human nature to plot against
authority (55.14.4); it is easier to make promises and threats than to carry them
out (38.7.2); men do wrong through fear, inexperience, audacity, and rashness
based on possession of power (e.g., frg. 12.9); severe punishments do not deter
offenders against the law (frg. 36.1-2); men harbour resentment at and attack
those who have insulted or injured them, more man they requite benefits and
kindnesses (frg. 36.14); men give their support to those moving up in status,
and seek to take down those already in power (frg. 57.18); men are by nature
tempted to violate the law (52.34.6-8);^ men are always engaged in wrongdoing
(55.16.3); it is human nature for men in mortal danger to destroy those guilty of
threatening them (78.15.3).
Dio is not always consistent or convincing in applying his concept of
human nature to historical events. In connection with his treatment of the
campaign against piracy in the Mediterranean in 67 B.C. under Pompey, he
comments that piracy and brigandage have always existed and will probably
never cease, "so long as human nature is the same" (36.20.1: D v f| axnr\
qrai v9pmcov fi).4 The motivation for this generalization was the spread of
piracy in the Mediterranean that resulted from the decay of the Roman fleet under
Severus Alexander.5 Yet piracy and, to a large extent, brigandage had been
checked within the Roman empire from the time of Augustus until the third
century A.D. In another connection, Dio was moved to write that "human
nature sometimes changes" (39.6.1), in recording Pompey's aid in the recall of
 1. "HUMAN NATURE" IN DIO 217
Cicero from exile, though he had been instrumental in bringing about the exile.
It is obvious here that Dio was elevating a single change in political tactics into
a deviation from the general principle that human nature is a constant
However universal Dio intended his conception of human nature and its
manifestations to be, it is to be noted that all his commentswhether his own
animadversions or those put into the contrived speeches of historical figures
concern, almost without exception, Roman senators and emperors. Like those
of Thucydides, Dio's judgements apply to upper-class men, and are random
extrapolations from single incidents, often at moments of crisis. Though at
times he is surely "bookish," relying on a catch-phrase or ideas borrowed from
widereading(perhaps even from anthologies of commonplaces), and though he
uses commonplaces often, his analysis of historical events by references to
"human nature" is in the tradition of Thucydides, Sallust, and Tacitus.6

2. DURATION OF THE OPERATIONS

AGAINST SEXTUS POMPEY IN 36 B;C.

The issue is raisedunderstandablywhether all the preparations, manoeuvres,

incidents, and battlesrecordedby Dio (49.1.1-11.1) and Appian could have taken
place in so short a time: the sixty-five days between 1 July (App. BC 5.97 [404]
and 3 September (//M3.2.505).7 Livy (fer. 129), Velleius, Floras, and Orosius
provide no chronological data. Appian (BC 5.98 [408]) dates the storm that
damaged Octavian's fleets to 3 July, and reports (BC 5.99 [412]) that it was
estimated that thirty days would be needed for repairs.
Three to four weeks would appear to have elapsed between the storm and
the Battle of Mylae. In the interval, we must account for the burial of the dead
and care of sick and injured, the transport of Octaviah's shipwrecked crews to
Tarentum to serve on Statilius Taurus' ships, Oct&vian's visits to veteran
colonies in Italy, his sailing to Lipara with Agrippa and part of the fleet, and his
return to me mainland. In addition, the Battle of Mylae was preceded by some
preliminary reconnoitering, for example by Agrippa, who approached the coast
of Sicily and returned to Lipara to marshal his fleet for the battle. Fitzler-Seeck
sets the date of the battle sometime in the first half of August 8 It may have
occurred, with speedyrepairs,at the end of July.
Between Mylae and Naulochus we need to fit in the following: Octavian's
transporting of his infantry across the Straits of Messina to Tauromenium, the
return of Sextus Pompey from the vfcinity of Mylae to Messana, the military
confrontation of Octavian and Sextus, the return of Octavian to the mainland
after his defeat by Sextus, Cornificius' waiting at Tauromenium for relief (which
218 APPENDIXES
never came), the arduous retreat of Cornificius and the remnants of Octavian's
troops to the north coast to join Agrippa's forces (a march well over three days;
cf. Gabba on App. BC 5.114 [475] for an astronomical clue pointing to mid-
August), the occupation of Mylae and Tyndaris by Agrippa coming from Lipara,
the transport by Octavian of new troops from the mainland to the vicinity of
Artemisium on nie northern coast, the march of Sextos from Messana to meet
this new threat, the march of Lepidus with his legions and cavalry the entire
length of Sicily from Lilybaeum toward Artemisium (at the same time that
Tisienus Gallus brought reinforcements also to Sextus from western Sicily), and
several days of preparation by Octavian's infantry and Agrippa's fleet before the
Battle of Naulochus on 3 September.
In support of the compression of all these events into so short a period
(about two months), it should be added that Appian (BC 5.99 [415]) notice^the
element of speed in the course of the campaign.

3. THE DATE IN 37 B.C. OF THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM

The day of the capture of Jerusalem is a perennially knotty problem. Dio's

statement that the siege of Jerusalem came to an end on a Sabbath day (49.22.4)
is at variance with that of Josephus, who records that the city fell xf\ oprr\ tr\
vrioteia, "on the festival of the fast:" i.e., the Day of Atonement, Yom
Kippur. In 37 this fell on 3 October, on "the same day" (it was claimed) that
Pompey in 63 had taken the city twenty-seven [actually twenty-six] years before
(AJ 14.487-488). Josephus could not have mistaken Yom Kippur for a Sabbath;
but non-Jews commonly thought mat the Sabbath was a fasting day.9 The fall
of Jerusalem to Pompey is also dated by Dio (37.16.2-4) on "the day of Saturn"
(cf. Fron. Str. 2.1.17: [Jerusalem fell to Vespasian's troops] Saturni die quo eis
nefas est quicquam seriae rei agere; Tib. 1.3.15-18). Why then does the Jewish
historian say that the city was taken "on the day of the fast"?
Now Josephus used as one of his sources Strabo, who states mat Pompey
took Jerusalem "on the day of fasting" (16.763), a phrase that Josephus repeats
for that event (AJ 14.66; in BJ 1.146, however, he says x eSouaSac). If
Strabo, like other non-Jews, used the term to designate a Sabbath, Josephus
mistook it andrepeatedit, in the sense of the Day of Atonement, for the fall of
Jerusalem in 37. 10 It has been suggested that Josephus' use of the term may be
based on an anti-Herodian tradition that Herod was responsible for the entry of
armed forces into the sacred city on the very day of Yom Kippur. *1 In any case,
even if the fall of Jerusalem to Pompey in 63 and to Herod and Sosius in 37 did
not take place on the very same day, the Jewish penchant for anniversaries
 3.TOEDATE OF THE CAPTURE OF JERUSALEM 219
operated to relate the two events (cf. the Roman association of the dates of the
Battles of Gindaros and Carrhae: 49.21.2-3n).12

4. VENTIDIUS' COMMAND IN THE EAST (49.19.1-22.1)

Ventidius' first military command in die East, culminating in the spectacular

defeat of Labienus and the Parthians at Mt Taurus in Cilicia, is described by Dio
under 39 B.C. (48.39-40). When did Ventidius assume his command? Dio
states that, after the compact of Misenum with Sextus Pompey, which took
place early in 39, Antony while headquartered in Athens sent Ventidius ahead to
Asia (48.39.1-2; so also Plut. Ant. 33.1). This date for the assumption of his
command is followed by Tarn1^ and Seaver.14 Appian, however (BC 5.65
[276]), places Ventidius' departure immediately after the Treaty of Brundisium
(October/November of 40); and Josephus (A/ 14.381-385, 394-395), narrating
the investiture of Herod as King of the Jews in Rome in 40, in die presence of
both Octavian and Antony, makes it apparent that Herod left for Jdaea late in
40, and it is possible that Antony instructed Ventidius to escort Herod to his
realm. Thus Ventidius would have wintered in Syria in 40/39, and have begun
his campaigns in the spring of 39. This date is accepted by Ganter, 15
Gardthausen,16 Brcklein,17 Holmes,18 Debevoise,19 Gundel,20 Broughton,21
and Buttrey.22
It is incontestable that Ventidius was sent as marshal of Antony, not with
an independent imperium but as his subordinate. He is, indeed, specifically
called legatus of Antony by Livy (Per. 127, 128) and by Florus (2.19.5). Note,
too, Gell. 15.4.4: praepositum esse a M. Antonio provinciis orientalibus; Jos.
BJ 1.317; and Plut. Ant. 34.3, who states that Ventidius was under Antony's
orders. Dio 48.41.5 is explicit: O\>K avTOKpa/ttop v X,X' xp<p
wtoo-Tpa-rrryv (cf. 49.21.1: Antony, not the Senate, relieved j Ventidius of his
command). The standard title of the governor of an imperial province under the
Empire was legatus (Augusti) pro praetore; but the propertitleof Ventidius was
legatus Antonii.23 Yet he is commonly called "proconsul" by modern
authorities.24
On the practice in the Fasti Triumphales of designating triumphal legati
(including Ventidius) as "proconsul," see 49.21.3n. It is probable that his
sphere of competence covered Syria and Cilicia (cf. 48.41), over which his
successor C. Sosius (49.22.3n) was governor.25
220 APPENDIXES
5. VENTIDIUS' TRIUMPHAL ORATION

Regarding Ventidius' triumphal oration (49.21.3n), Fronto (ad Ver. 2.1.7 =

pl 17 van den Hout) wrote: Ventidius ille, postquam Parthosfuditfugavitque, ad
victoriam suam praedicandam orationem a C. Sallustio mutuatus est, "The
famous Ventidius, after he routed and put to flight the Parthians, borrowed from
C. Sallustius a speech to extol his victory." It has long been the communis
opinio that Ventidius "borrowed" or "plagiarized" a speech from Sallust,26 or
that "Sallust wrote the oration for Ventidius."27 E. Skard, however,28 argues
persuasively that the "panegyric" was not by Sallust, but that Ventidius
composed his speech out of words, phrases, and details culled from Sallust's
works. On mutuari in the sense of "make selective borrowings," cf. Tac. Dial.
31.5: mutuabimur a Peripateticis aptos ... locos. ~

6. ON THE MARRIAGE OF ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA

From the autumn of 37 B.C. Antony maintained a conspicuous spousal

relationship with Cleopatra, though until the late spring of 32 he was legally
also the husband of Octavia. Dio is silent about a marriage, but in a cumulative
succession of sources it is specified that Antony did marry Cleopatra: Sen. Suas.
1.6 (et Octaviam uxorem haberet et Cleopatram); Plut. Comp. Demetr. & Ant.
1.3, 4.1 (uo Suo yuvaica fiyayexo); Suet. Aug. 69.2 (uxor mea est, in a
letter of Antony to Octavian); Eutr. 7.6.1 (Cleopatram reginam Aegypti duxit
uxorem); Serv, ad Aen. 7.684 (Cleopatram duxit uxorem); cf. Jerome Chron.
p244 (ed. Fotheringham).
When did the marriage take place? If we view the matter from the
guidelines of Roman law, as some do 2 9 (though Bengtson is correct that we
ought not look at the matter too closely from a juristic point of view), 30 it is
facile to conclude that Antony followed the letter of the law by formally
divorcing Octavia before marrying Cleopatra (on the divorce of Octavia, see
50.3.2n). Plutarch's comment (Ant. 31.2), that, when his marriage to Octavia
was being arranged, Antony did not admit to a marriage (yautp) with Cleopatra
(though his liaison with her was open), is rhetorical embellishment. It is true
that, in the summary statements of Eutropius (7.6.1), Orosius (6.19.4, 11), and
Servius (ad Aen. 7.684), it is said that Antony divorced Octavia and married
Cleopatra, but we cannot conclude that these authors necessarily intended a
chronological sequence.
Though specific evidence is lacking for an early date, the preponderant
scholarly view is that Antony married Cleopatra at Antioch in late 37 or early
 6. ON THE MARRIAGE OF ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA 221

36, at the time when he acknowledged and legitimized his three children by her
(Plut. Ant. 36.3; Dio 49.32.4n), and bestowed on her extensive territories in
Asia Minor (as a "wedding gift"?).31 Seneca (Suas. 1.6) and Plutarch (Comp.
Demetr. & Ant. 4.1) bom state that Antony had two wives at the same time; and
Plutarch reminds his readers that neither bigamy nor marriage with aperegrina
(foreign woman) was valid under Roman law. 32 Antony, however, had cast his
fortune with Cleopatra and eastern ways. The prerogative of polygamy was
accorded to the Ptolemies and to Macedonian kings and nobles, in accordance
with Ptolemaic law and royal law in the Hellenistic East. In this style,
Cleopatra would be regarded in the East as Antony's legitimate wife. 33 In the
absence of specific evidence for a formal marriage, recourse is sometimes had to
the theory of a "sacred marriage" between Antony as Neos Dionysos and
Cleopatra as Nea Aphrodite, or as Osiris and Isis in Egypt. 34 Iii any case
Antony, in his infatuation with Cleopatra and seduced by Near Eastern practices,
would not have let Roman law stand in his way, nor hesitate "chastis'd with the
sober eye / Of dull Octavia" (Shakespeare Antony and Cleopatra V.2.54-55).
We have the advantage of numismatic evidence in our search for a clue to
the date of the marriage. Antony's marriage with Octavia is impressed on
numerous coins, issued by eastern mints, bearing portraits of the couple as late
as the years 36/33. These include an as with conjoined heads of Antony and
Octavia. Such jugate portrait busts were a standard emblem in the Seleucid
Empire for the ruling king and his queen. 35 But most of the coins with
portraits of Antony and Cleopatra are not jugate, but represent him as overlord of
the East with Roman imperium, and her as queen of Egypt and of the lands of
the Ptolemaic empire. One might well-nigh conclude from these types that, in
the royal practice of the eastern kingdoms, he was being portrayed as a sort of
prince-consort of Cleopatra.3^ Lederer, commenting on some undated coins
from Coele Syria with portraits of Antony on the obverse and Cleopatra on the
reverse, concluded that they are evidence of a marriage and arbitrarily dated them
to the year 36. 37 Svoronos, on the other hand, in his treatment of Cleopatra's
Coele-Syrian coinage, found no evidence for a marriage then.3* Buttrey,
discussing an issue of tetradrachms (possibly from Antioch) with portraits of
Antony and Cleopatraagain not in jugate styledated mem to 34, after the
Donations of Alexandria, concluding, however, that they were issued in
commemoration of the open liaison of Antony and Cleopatra, but not to
announce their marriage.3^ But we now have substantial evidence from a rare
coin, minted in Coele Syria/Phoenicia, that has jugate portraits of Antony and
Cleopatra and for the first time a date> Cleopatra's 19thregnalyear as queen of
Egypt The date is, accordingly, 34/33 B.C. 40 Baldus considers it plausible
that this was the date of the marriage of Antony and Cleopatra, formalized in
222 APPENDIXES
connection widi the "triumph" in Alexandria and the Donations of Alexandria in
34.41
Cleopatra was the first monarch of Seleucid lands since the death of
Antiochus XHI in 64; as a result, many of her coins from Syria are double-dated
and record a new era, the beginning of her rule over Coele Syria, established with
the territorial grants of Antony in 37/36, Year 1 of the new era coinciding with
Year 16 of her reign in Egypt It has been demonstrated mat this new regnal era
should not be taken as beginning with the date of their marriage. Indeed,
Antony's portrait on such coins is not conjoined with Cleopatra's, and he is set
forth as Roman overlord of the East.42
Support for 34 as the date of the marriage is to be found in Livy:
[Cleopatram] quam uxoris loco iam pridem captus amore eius habere coeperat
[Antonius], "Antony had begun to treat as his wife Cleopatra, with whom he had
long been in love." This detail appears at the end of the summary for the years
covered by Per. 131: i.e., 36-34 B.C. Moreover, in Antony's letter to Octavian
from the spring or summer of 33 (Suet. Aug. 69.2), he expressly says of
Cleopatra uxor mea est, about a year before he divorced Octavia.43 Holmes
concluded that the date of the marriage should be placed a short time before the
divorce.44
The weight of the evidence draws one to the conclusion that the year of the
marriage was 34. 45

7. THE PROPAGANDA WAR OF 32-31 B.C.

"Propaganda outweighed arms in the contests of the Triumviral period."46 From

both sides there flowed a stream of charges and countercharges, unparalleled in
ancient history. In the critical year and a half before Actium, when the
constitutional status of Antony and Octavian was in limbo, the campaign of
recriminations and vituperations was heated up to a frenzy. Every trick of
propaganda was employed: pamphlets and manifestos were circulated; handbills
containing charges, rumours, and lampoons were scattered among the soldiers in
their camps; public speeches before the Senate and the people were made by
Octavian and his partisans, and by Antony's supporters; private letters from the
triumvirs to each other and to individuals issued from the headquarters of both;
Antony sent recriminatory and slanted dispatches to Rome; personal envoys from
both sides were sent to present and argue complaints; spies and secret emisssaries
sought to float rumours, and to reconnoitre policies and troop movements; both
Antony and Octavian made self-serving and inflammatory speeches to their
troops, especially before the Battle of Actium. So high were the stakes.
 7. THE PROPAGANDA WAR OF 32-31 B.C. 223

The propaganda themes were as varied and comprehensive as the methods

used to gain support and influence public opinion. The most significant of diese
motifs may be summarized under die following categories: [1] Finances- Funds
were being assiduously collected on both sides for war, but charges were
circulated that the real motives were concealed, and that the booty won on both
sides was unfairly divided. [2] Troops: The numbers of soldiers were unfairly
distributedthe accusations ragedand Roman legionaries were being
improperly used. [3] Territories: Complaints mounted that both allotment and
control of provinces and client states were improperly administered; Antony's
control of other lands in the East, and of Egypt in particular, was contested, and
his grants of territories in die Roman orbit to Cleopatra and her children were
challenged. [4] Lepidus: The manner and legitimacy of his deposition from
power by Octavian were questioned. [5] Sextus Pompey's flight from Sicily
from the hands of Octavian wasridiculedas exposing ineffective leadership, and
his execution by Antony's side aroused attacks. [6] Artavasdes of Armenia:
Charges were spread concerning the scelus Antonii, his deception and capture of
Artavasdes, and about Octavian's tampering with this client king in the East.
[7] Cleopatra: Vicious rumours were spread about her character and ambitions,
her bewitching and enslavement of Antony, and his liaison with her. [8]
Octavia: Antony's treatment of his Roman wife aroused sentiment. [9]
Caesarion's legitimacy as Caesar's son and heir was asserted and challenged.
[10] Antony's Will, its contents disclosed by Octavian, was manipulated to
arouse popular opinion against him. [11] Alexandria: The immoral life in mis
cosmopolitan city was broadcast, together with rumours of plans to move the
capital of the empire mere. [12] Libertas: Offers from bom sides to restore the
Republic were made and exposed as ridiculous. [13] Religion: Antony's
proclivities to oriental religious practices were contrasted invidiously with
Octavian's devotion to traditional Roman cults. [14] Personal Behaviour:
Rumours of the life-style of each, his vices, weaknesses of character, inadequa-
cies as leader, and sexual misconduct were spread abroad.
The tram of die history of mis period has been "obscured and distorted by
the propaganda of bom sides, propaganda which has survived (and still defies
complete analysis) in our sources," and which had "a definite effect upon
historical writing of the next century and a half, and through mis upon modern
works."47 Dio's sensitivity to the importance of mis propaganda stemmed from
the experience of his owntimeswidt die propaganda of Septimius Severus.48
224 APPENDIXES

8. THE OFFICIAL TERMINATION OF THE TRIUMVIRATE

There is no difficulty about the dates of the first quinquennium of the

Triumvirate (cf. 50.4.3n): it extended from 27 November 43 to 31 December 38
(EJ2 p32). It was renewed for another five years by the Treaty of Tarentum in
September or October of 37. Now Augustus laterrecorded(RG 7.1) that he was
triumvir per continuos annos decern (in the Greek translation, o\>ve%aiv teow
5KGt). Unless Augustus was careless here (writing this, as he did, thirty-five to
fifty years later), or was being deliberately deceptive, the irregular continuation
of the Triumvirate in 37 was perhaps made legallyretroactiveto 1 January, so
that the acta of the triumvirs during the first two-thirds of the year would
thereby be legitimized. But Appian (///. 28), one of whose prime sources was
Augustus' autobiography, states mat the second quinquennium was scheduled to
end 31 December 32 B.C. Accordingly, we are constrained to conclude that the
period from 1 January to September/October 37 was a "revolutionary" one in
which the triumvirs ruled without constitutional authority; or alternatively that,
if the second quinquennium ended 31 December 33, the triumvirs continued after
that to hold onto their power illegallybut effectively.
In an effort to overcome the dilemma, Mommsen proposed his "abdication
theory,"49 by which he held that the Triumvirate was effectively not limited by
time, so that the triumviral powers could continue legally until the holders of
the office officially resigned. This "solution" is now generally discounted. The
view that the Triumvirate ended 31 December of 32based essentially on the
combined evidence of App. ///. 28, Livy Per. 132, Dio 50.4.3, CIL 5.525 (=
ILS 77), and Tac. Ann. 1.2.1is held by von Premerstein, de Visscher, Kolbe,
Wilcken, Gabba, Anello, and Grenade. Some of the scholars who opt for 31
December of 33e.g., Bauer, Kromayer, Dessau, Holmes, Fadinger, Benario,
Gray, de Martino, and Charlesworthargue that Octavian effected a coup d'tat
sometime in 32, resigning the office and title of triumvir, thereby repudiating
his official connection with Antony. Antony in fact continued to exercise the
powers and used the title of triumvir after 1 January 32 (see his enormous issue
of coinage before the Battle of Actium: Crawford Coinage 1.539-542), perhaps
even after he was stripped of them by the Senate.
It is helpful in this connection to bear in mind that the triumviral period
was a time of arbitrary exercise of power, attended by violence, illegality, and
irregularities. A corrective to a strict constitutional interpretation is to be found
in Val. Max. 6.2.12, who remarks how the contemporary jurist Cascellius
scorned all the benefactions of the triumvirs as "beyond the pale of the laws:"
universa eorum beneficia extra omnem ordinem legum ponens. There is little
 8. THE OFFICIAL TERMINATION OF THE TRIUMVIRATE 225

doubt that neither Octavian nor Antony respected juridical-constitutional niceties

(though one should not overstate the arbitrary exercise of power, for die
traditional institutions of the Republic persisted). 50 Numismatic and
inscriptional evidence helps to prove that Octavian and Antony continued, by
virtue of their control of armed forces and their auctoritas, to exercise great
power. Fadinger, and particularly Gray in his masterful treatment of the knotty
problem, have shown that Appian was wrong and that the legal date of the end of
the Triumvirate was indeed 31 December 33. This accounts for the facts that
there was a sudden prominence for the consuls in January of 32, 51 and that the
Senate by decree stripped Antony of power (in the summer of 32, at any rate
before die declaration of war against Cleopatra in October).
It would appear that Octavian, by die middle of 32, had convinced die
ruling class in Italy (senators and equestrians) to assign him a "crisis command"
as national war leader (dux). It is in keeping with Octavian's efforts to acquire a
morally superior status that he made a gesture of resigning from die effective
powers as triumvir, thus becoming a privatus. His special military command
{imperium) was without official title (dux was not a constitutional office), but
was legitimized by consensus universorum and an oath of allegiance to him in
Italy and die western provinces.5^
Octavian's mobilization against Antony was in accord with age-old Roman
tradition: intervention in die public interest when existing governmental
mechanisms proved inadequate. There were more than a few classic exemplars as
precedents, with L. Junius Brutus as prototype at die very founding of die
Republic (cf. Cic. Rep. 2.46: "Lucius Brutus, a man preeminent in native
ability and bravery,... although a private citizen, sustained die whole burden of
government"). Octavian assumed die role of dux privatus and vindex rei publicae
in a crisis situation. Those who took up arms under his banner swore a military
oath to him as dux for die duration of die war at hand (as he himself stated
explicidy in RG 25.2). 53

9. THE ACTIAN ERA

While pragmatic constitutional accommodationsto avoid overt monarchy and

to satisfy the pride and aspirations of die senatorial orderwere eventually
worked out by Augustus between 29 and 23, Actium remained for many die true
beginning of die Principate (Tac. Ann. 1.1.1; Hist. 1.1.1; Jos. AJ 15.109; Suet.
Aug. 8.3; Eutr. 7.8.2; Epit. de Caes. L30; Aur. Vict. 1.2). 54 The significance
of Actium as die "beginning" of die "monarchy" is documented by anniversary
issues of coins celebrating, for example, die fiftietii year of the event by
226 APPENDIXES
Tiberius, the 100th by Vespasian, the 150th by Hadrian, and the 300th by
Tetricus and Claudius Gothicus.55
In many calendars in the eastern part of the empire the victory at Actium
was the starting date of a new era, superseding variously the Seleucid, Sullan,
Pompeian, and Caesarian eras. The Actian Era, probably the best known victory
era in antiquity, has been documented for various places in Macedonia, Cyrene,
Asia, and Syria. One formulation is a date by "the year of Caesar's victory"
(e.g., IGRR 4.991 = 1706, Samos). In Syria the starting date for this era was
sometimes .adjusted to the beginning of the Syrian New Year, elsewhere, it
began with Augustus' birthday, 23 September; in Macedonia it was predated to
begin in 32 B.C., so as to coincide with the beginning of the Macedonian
calendar year.
On Augustus' regnal year in Egypt, see 51.19.6n.56

10. THE ACTIAN GAMES

Besides the quinquennial Actia at Nicopolis (51.1.2n), Actian games, Roman

style, were celebrated in Rome in 28 B.C. by Octavian and Agrippa; these were
held every four years according to Dio (53.1.4-6). There was also held at Rome
on 2 and 3 September an annual celebration of Augustus' victories at Actium
and in Sicily (EJ2 p51 [Fasti]; App. BC 5.130 [541]). Actian Games were
established in many places in the empire: they are evidenced, for example, at
Cos, Pergamum, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Perinthus, Phrygian Hierapolis, Antioch,
Tyre, Bostra in Nabataean Arabia, Alexandria, Nicopolis in Egypt, and Iguvium
in Italy.57 The quinquennial games at Jerusalem, established by Herod in
honour of Augustus, were probably also "Actian Games."58
On Augustus' encouragement of festivals and his increase in the privileges
of athletes, see Suet. Aug. 43.1; 45.2-3. The designation of a specific festival
as hieros (i.e., certamen sacrum, or iselasticum) and stephanites entitled victors
to triumphal entry through a breach in the walls of their native cities and to a
pension (maintenance or the equivalent in money) paid them by their cities for
life. The classic statement is in Augustus' contemporary, Vitruvius (9, praef.
1): triomphantes quadrigis in moenia et in patrias invehantur e reque publica
perptua vita constitutis vectigalibus fruantur ("victors are carried on chariots
through the walls of their native cities, and enjoy a lifetime public pension from
fixed revenues").59 Beginning with Augustus, the designation of sacrum for
games in various parts of the empire apparently became the prerogative of the
emperor; indeed, certamina sacra multiplied enormously, and by Dio's time they
were exceedingly common.60
 11. ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS EGYPTIANS 227

11. ROMAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS EGYPTIANS

Like most Roman senators and equestrians of the highest rank (quits illustres),
Dio never visited Egypt The relative isolation of Egypt, beginning with the
principate of Augustus, contributed to the formulation and handing down of a
pattern of stereotyped judgements about its people. 61 This second-hand
knowledge is the source of Dio's consistently unfavourable attitude toward both
Egyptians and Alexandrians.
The well-nigh unrelieved contempt felt by most Romans toward
inhabitants of Egypt ranged from casual, stereotyped comments to the
unrestrained loathing of a Juvenal.62 They were instinctively repelled by the
fossilized religion of the Egyptians, with their worship of animal gods, their
fanaticism andreligiousstrife. On the one hand the Egyptian masses, who were
denied the assimilative bonds of Hellenization and Romanization, were scorned
because of their subservience, but feared because of their alien ways and devious
practices.63 On the other hand, the denial of civic institutions (council, elected
magistrates) to Alexandria, the second city of the empire, brought out the worst
in its inhabitants: they were prone to sedition, riots, violence, litigiousness,
arrogance, and mockery of and overt offensiveness to Roman officials.64
Evidence of Graeco-Roman disdain for Egyptians and Alexandrians ranges
from Polybius to the late Greek and Roman authors. Among typical
judgements: Strabo, who lived in Egypt for many years, transmits Polybius'
view of Egyptians as volatile and not suitable for civic life (though he adds that
Roman administration has brought improvement) (17.797-798); the author of
the Bellum Alexandrinwn dismisses them as treacherous and irresponsible (7.2).
Philo's experience with them in his native Egypt was direct:'he vents his spleen
on Egyptians as fanatical, stupid, and seditious; and on Alexandrians as arrogant
and deceitful (Leg. 162-163, 166). 65 Cicero (Rab. Post. 34-35) warns against
Alexandrians for their brazenness and deceitfulness. Dio Chrysostom (Or. 32,
Ad Alexandrinos) does not spare the Alexandrians for their frivolous, volatile,
brazen, paradoxical character; and Floras (2.13.60) accuses them of being unfit
for military service, cowardly, and treacherous. Whether or not Juvenal lived as
an exile in Egypt, in Satire 15 he is merciless in his condemnation of Egyp-
tians, whom he regards as an inhuman people given to religious fanaticism,
cannibalism, and bestiality.66 From the Roman administrative viewpoint, the
social and legal disabilities imposed on Egyptians added income to the "Special
Account," in which were collected (among numerous revenues other than from
- - > taxation) fines for a great variety of infractions, and which was administered by a
228 APPENDIXES

special official known as the idiologusP1 The so-called "Acts of the Pagan
Martyrs"revealthe brashness, seditiousness, and offensiveness of Alexandrians
in their relationship to the Roman government.68
Dio runs the whole gamut of valuations of Egyptians and Alexandrians: see
especially 51.17.1-2n. He may have been strongly influenced in his prejudices
and hostility by reports of incidents in Egypt in his own time: for instance,
when Caracalla ordered the expulsion of Egyptians from Alexandria in 215
(P.Giess. 40, col. 2, lines 16-29), he called them useless and uncivilized
peasants. And a Greek writing in the third century, perhaps from Alexandria
(P.Oxy. 1681), casually uses the phrase dpctpov xiva T\ Aiyrmov v-
v6pco7tov, "some barbarian or inhuman Egyptian."69

12. THE BOULE OF ALEXANDRIA (51.17.2-3) V

The difficulties attending the understanding of Dio's information about the

Alexandrian boule stem, in part, from his careless expressions, which have led
to various misinterpretations. While the official Greek word for the Roman
Senate was avyicA.TiTo, and in the Severan period axrpLfaryioc, ovXfj was not
infrequent, the term is seldom employed by Dio (see Talbert Senate 495).
BOUAJJ is the traditional word for a local Greek city council (cf. Dio 49.14.3),
but it was also used for the Roman Senate as early as the Age of Augustus (e.g.,
in the Cyrene Edicts three times [EJ^ 311, Edict V] and in the Greek translation
of RG 1 and 5). The word for Roman senator in Dio is very frequently
J1ODXE\)TT|C; and JJOUXEVEIV signifies senator esse (see, e.g., 52.21.3, 32.2; cf.
52.15.1, 31.1). 70
Unfortunately, in our passage Dio uses ouXeutfic as well as ouXeueiv
for both the Roman senators and the members of the boule of Alexandria. Ad-
ditional ambiguity arises from his careless use of iceivoi, which I take to mean
Egyptians, of to uv aXXoi, by which he must intend "other cities," and of
oqxov, which I interpret to mean inhabitants of the province of Egypt.
Dio's statement about the Alexandrian boule and other changes under
Septimius Severus is confirmed by the Historia Augusta (Sev. 17.2-3): Deinde
Alexandrinis ius bouleutarum dedit [Septimius Severus], qui sine publico con-
silio ita ut sub regibus ante vivebant uno iudice contenu, quem Caesar dedisset.
Multa praeterea his iura mutavit. Severus entered Alexandria in November of
199, and the boule began to function between 200 and 202. His radical overhaul
of Egypt introducedrevolutionarychanges that were calculated, among other
things, to impose the burden of responsibility for taxes on the shoulders of the
 12. THE BOULE OF ALEXANDRIA (51.17.2-3) 229
city councillors; and councils were established also in the metropolises of all the
nomes of Egypt for the same purpose.
Dio had no interest in providing his readers with a comprehensive
exposition on the imperial administrative structure of Egypt at this point, but
intended onlyin line with his own anti-Egyptian prejudicesto commend the
absence of a boule in Alexandria under Augustus. (It is likely mat the city of
Ptolemai's retained its own boule throughout the entire Roman period; and the
new city of Antinopolis, founded by Hadrian in 130, began its life with a
boule.) We know from papyri that efforts were made by Alexandrians to obtain
permission to establish a boule in the reign of Augustus (probably in 20/19
[PSI1160 = CP J 2.150]) and again under Claudius in A.D. 41 (P. bond. 1912 =
CPJ 2.153), both times without success. Note Claudius' words (CPJ 2.153.67-
68): "You know well that such a boule did not exist under the emperors before
me."71
With regard to the altered arrangements in Egypt, Dio knew, for example,
that under Macrinus in 218 Marius Secundus, a Roman senator, was active in
Egyptian administration (78.35.1; confirmed by PSI 3.249, dated 18 April 218).
He describes in detail Caracalla's massacre of Alexandrians m 215, a little over a
decade after the establishment of the boule, in 77.22.2-3, a passage that is
somewhat suspect because of Dio's hatred of Caracalla.72

13. THE TRIBUNICIAN POWER OF AUGUSTUS (51.19.6-7)

The modern literature on the tribunician power of Augustus is extensive, and the
evolution of his acquisition of this cardinal basis of the Principate has been
satisfactorily clarified. Augustus himself (RG 10.1) records summarily two
stages in the evolution of his tribunicia potestas:\Tvcst, sacrosanctitas (cf.
49.15.5-6n; 53.32.5n), 73 then full tribunicia potestas: sacrosanctus in per-
petuum ut essem et, quoad viverem, tribunicia potestas mihi esset, per legem
sanctum est. Orosius (6.18.34, cf. 20.7) and Appian (C 5.132 [548-549])
erroneously state that he received tribunicia potestas for life in 36 B.C., and Dio
that this occurred in 30. (It is possible that Dio found in his. source a proposal
to Octavian to relinquish his residual triumviral powers and receive full
tribunician power, an offer mat he rejected.)
A three-step increment in Octavian/Augustus' tribunician power is the
most defensible view, and this is the communis opinio of scholars. In this
staged evolution Octavian was imitatmgjthe acquisition of tribunician power by
Caesar (cf. 42.20.3; 44.5.3)j,rln 36, besides sacrosanctitas, he receivedAe ius -
subselli (right of a seat on the tribunes' bench in the Senktehouse); then in 30
230 APPENDIXES

limited tribunicia potestas, embracing ius auxilii; and in 23 he was voted full
tribunicia potestas.

14. THE "VOTE OF ATHENA" (51.19.7)

Dio states that Octavian's appellate jurisdiction was accompanied by an "Athena

vote" in all (criminal) courts. Much ingenuity has been expended by scholars in
trying to define the nature of Octavian's "Athena vote." The range of opinions
is a follows: [1] Octavian's vote was cast to break ties (nugatory, since a tie
vote assured acquittal); [2] When there was a majority of one vote for
condemnation, Octavian's vote brought about acquittal by causing a tie (this
view is the one most in favour); [3] Octavian had the power to intervene in^U
trials by casting the deciding vote, no matter what the jury's decision; and [4]
Octavian had a summary power of pardon.
But in fact, the term "vote of Athena" was a Greek proverbial statement; it
derived from the practice in trials conducted by the Areopagus in Athens, by
which a tie vote resulted in acquittal. (The intervention of Athena on Orestes'
behalf in Aeschylus' Eumenides is only symbolic, commemorating the tradition
of deciding on the side of mercy.) 75 Under Roman law, too, a tie-vote in a jury
trial resulted in acquittal, although the term "Athena's vote" did not carry over
into Latin {calculus Minervae, which has come into the terminology of Roman
constitutional law, is a modern term not documented in the sources).
Contemporary sources, especially the Res Gestae, are silent on such a
power of Octavian/Augustus, and we know of no single example of his use of an
"Athena vote." There are only four pertinent references to the phrase "Athena's
vote" in later sources: Lucian Pise. 21, a humorous appeal to Athena to vote for
the speaker in a dialogue; Ampelius Liber Memorialis 8.5, a reference to a tour-
ist attraction, the "actual" voting tablet cast by Athena for Orestes; Phil. Vit.
Soph. 2.3.568 (ooTiep n 'AOnvt \|/fi<po); and Julian Or. 3 (114D-115A),
which proves the summary pardon of the emperor in the fourth century.
Significant in evaluating Dio's meaning in this connection is the virtual identity
of the language of Dio and Philostratus, who were contemporaries and knew each
other. 76 Philostratus uses the phrase in an archaizing, antiquarian fashion,
referring to the special favour of Herodes in providing a claque to enhance the
reputation of the sophist Aristocles of Pergamum. Similarly, when Dio recorded
Octavian's appellate jurisdiction, he merely added a reference to the proverbial
"appeal to Athena" as an antiquarian embellishment; he did not intend this as a
constitutional power of Octavian in 30 B.C. 77
 15. THE BEGINNING QF AUGUSTUS* RULE 231

15. THE BEGINNING OF AUGUSTUS' RULE

The tentative, pragmatic, evolving nature of the Augustan Principate, the

absence of a firm definition of the new system, and the personal preconceptions
of later writers, led to many different datings of the beginning of the power of
Augustus (see 51.1.1-2n). Among these dates are 15 March 44 (Jos. AJ 18.32;
BJ 2.168); 7 January 43 (the altar at Narbo [CIL 12.4333 = ILS 112]: qua die
primum imperium orbis terrarum auspicatus r); 7 8 2 September 31, the Battle
of Actium (see 51.1.l-2n); 1 August 30, the fall of Alexandria (see 51.19.6n);
the year 29 or 27 (Oros. 6.20.1-2, a garbled passage: summa rerum ac potes-
tatum penes unum esse coepit, et mansit, quod Graeci monarchiam vocant); 29
B.C. (P.Oxy. 35 [A.D. 223], which gives forty-three years as the length of his
reign); 1 January 27 (Censor. De Die Natali 21.8; 22.16); and [ea 1 July] 23, the
beginning of his annual tribunician power (Tac. Ann. 1.9.2; numerous
inscriptions and coins). 79

16. ON THE PRAENOMEN "IMPERATOR" (52.41.3-4)

In Dio's time, "Imperator" (atoKpcVrcop) was the first title in the imperial
nomenclature: the statement "imperator appellatus" signified the beginning of
the reign of a new princeps (cf. SHA Comm. 2). This title, as formal
praenomen, is distinct from the salutation "Imperator" with a numeral indicating
the number of times an emperor had been hailed for military victories. Dio's
view is that Julius Caesar was the first of the imperatores {qua ruler as distinct
from victor), and Suetonius concurs. This is, of course, an anachronism: Caesar
did not use "Imperator" as & praenomen, though Dio states that he received it as a
title in 45 (43.44.2: coenrep n cptov, "as a proper name;" cfi Suet. Caes. 76.1:
[recepit] insuper praenomen imperatoris). It is, moreover, highly doubtful that it
was awarded to Caesar as an hereditary title.
The praenomen imperatoris first appears with Octavian's name on coins
struck by Agrippa in 38 (BMCRep. 2.411-412; Crawford Coinage 1.535 [534];
cf. 2.744)IMP. CAESAR DIVI IULI Fand this has now been confirmed
indirectly by an inscription from Aphrodisias-Plarasa.80 From that time on,
Octavian did not use the praenomen Gaius any longer.
Octavian 's praenomen "Imperator" was not a constitutionally based title,
but rather a flamboyant, honorific one^ perhaps invented by Agrippa to signify
that Octavian as heir of Caesar's military authority was the Roman "commander"
or "general" par excellence, this a counter-thrust to the propaganda of Antony and
232 APPENDIXES
Lepidus as great military leaders. It was one of the many revolutionary
innovations in that time of unstable legal and constitutional forms, but Octavian
retained it in his nomenclature, and also added the number of times he was hailed
"Imperator" for military victories. Traditionally, triumphatores who were hailed
"Imperator" retained that title during me triumphal celebration, even within the
Pomerium, but tradition also required that the title should lapse at the end of the
triumph. Octavian, however,retainedit in this new form for the rest of his life,
but not in the sense of "Emperor" as Dio understands the title from his third-
century perspective. In the Res Gestae Augustus does not refer to this usage,
and there was no Caesarian precedent for the praenomen imperatoris. (On
imperator as a term of address to Augustus, cf. Vitr. 3 praef. 4.) Augustus did
not bequeath it to his successors: Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius did not use it
Since Dio did not know of the first usage of the praenomen for Octavian in
38 (or, if he did, he preferred to remain silent about it), he assigned its
assumption by Octavian to 29 and made this moment the beginning of the
monarchy. Hence he associated mis usage with the similar grant to Caesar, and
added a statement about the hereditary nature of the praenomen to emphasize die
continuity of the dynasty through grants to both Caesar and Augustus.81
Octavian's use of the praenomen from 38 was calculated to make all
Romans associate him with a military title. Since he continued to use it in his
nomenclature, in the form "Imperator Caesar Divi filius," there is implied also
the merging of the civil and military realms, and continuity with Caesar. After
27 this became "Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus." For the Augustan
usage, see as examples ILS 85 (Nemausus, 25 B.C.): imp. Caesari divi f.
Augusto eos. nonum, designate decimum, imp. octavom; and ILS 91 (= EJ^
14; Rome, 10/9 B.C.): imp. Caesar divif. Augustus pontifex maximus, imp.
XII, eos. XI, trib. pot. XIV, Aegupto in potestatem populi Romani redacta Soli
donum dedit. In the East, the Greek translation aaxoicpcVtcop had the
implication of aoiXeuc ("king"), a tide tfiat also always appeared first in the
Hellenistic royal titulature.
On Dio's use of imperator in connection with Augustus, see also 52.40.2;
53.17.4-5. "Imperator" as praenomen did not definitively become an imperial
title until Vespasian's reign, nearly a hundred years after Dio's attribution to
Augustus of "Imperator" as an imperial title.82
 17. THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF ATHLETES" PENSIONS 233
17. THE ECONOMIC BURDEN OF ATHLETES' PENSIONS (52.30.4-6)

Evidence abounds in the second and third centuries for the drain on finances of
cities of the empire for sacred games, through athletes' pensions and numerous
other privileges. See, for example, PIxmd. 3.1164 (A.D. 212), a record of the
sale for 1000 drachmas, by a victorious boxer, of his pension rights to the sons
of a member of the boule of Antinopolis, Egypt; and CP Herrn. 52-56, col. iv
(= Select Papyri [Loeb] 306; cf. Lewis & Reinhold 2.236) (A.D. 267), in
which the victor in "sacred games" claims from the boule of Hermopolis two
talents, 3090 silver drachmas as back pension, at the rate of 180 drachmas a
month for each of two pensions.83
The enormous proliferation of "sacred games" (or "iselastic games"see
51.1.2n), and the encouragement by the Roman imperial government of Greek
competitive games, reflected interprovincial and unifying policies, but the costs
of these games and the resultant pensions to athletes were shifted to cities of th
empire.84 As George Mautis characterized this professionalization of athletics:
"L'athltisme qui avait t au V e sicle av. J.-C. une source de forc et de beaut
pour les Grecs tait devenu, l'poque impriale, une vritable calamit
nationale."85
 NOTES TO THE APPENDIXES

1 In addition to the passages cited in this Appendix, see also frgs. 5.12; 7.3;
17.14; 20.4.
2 Study 76. Valuable in general for understanding Dio is the Excursus, "The
Roman View of Historical Explanation," in G. Williams, Tradition and Originality
in Roman Poetry (Oxford, 1968), 619-633.
3 Note the relation of this passage to Thuc. 3.84.2, an acute gloss on
Thucydides' thinking that is usually bracketed (cf. A.W. Gomme, A Historical
Commentary on Thucydides [Oxford, 1956], ad loc.), in which man's
ungovernable physis is depicted as based on self-interest and aggression, and as
placing revenge and thirst for power-before religion, law, and justice. Gomme,
who regards this chapter of Thucydides as not genuine, states that the similarity of
Dio's comments does not prove imitation. To Gomme they seemed to be
"commonplaces that Dio could have got from any one of a dozen writers or have
thought of for himself, and to have nothing to do with this chapter."
4 Cf. Thuc. 3.82.2.
5 H. v. Domaszewski ("Untersuchungen zur roemischen Kaisergeschichte, IV:
Die Piraterie im Mittelmeere unter Severus Alexander," RhM 5 [1903], 382-390)
documents the incidence of piracy at the time by inscriptional evidence.
6 On the relationship of Dio's and Thucydides' uses of "human nature" in their
histories, see M. Reinhold, "Human Nature as Cause in Ancient Historiography,"
in J.W. Eadie and J. Ober, eds., The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in
Honor of Chester G. Starr (Lanham, Md., 1985), 21-40.
7 Holmes Architect 113 n5.
8 RE 10.313-314 = Julius (Augustus) 132.
9 See esp. M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism 1
(Jerusalem, 1974), 276-285 (104^108); 319-320 (26); 510-511 (229); 2
(Jerusalem, 1980), 349-353 (406); M. Reinhold, Diaspora: The Jews among the
Greeks and Romans (Toronto, 1983), 86, 122.
10 K. Albert, Strabo als Quelle des Flavius Josephus (Diss. Wrzburg, 1902),
22-23; L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980) (Berlin &
New York, 1980), 406-407. (Josephus [AJ 12.4] states that Ptolemy Soter at the
end of the fourth century B.C. took Jerusalem on the Sabbath.)
11 RE Suppl. 2.31-34 = Herodes 14 (Otto). This proposal is rejected as
"unconvincing" by Safrai & Stern Jewish People 1.65 n5.
12 On the date of the fall of Jerusalem in general, see J. Kromayer, "Kleine
Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats, II: Die Eroberung Jerusalems
durch Herodes," Hermes 29 (1894), 563-571; Otto in RE, loc. cit.; Brcklein
Quellen 61-65; R. Marcus, Josephus (Loeb) 7.480-481 n c , 700-701 n d ; Safrai &
Stem Jewish People 1.64-68; Smallwood Jews 58-59 and 565-567 (Appendix D:
"The Precise Dates of theFall of Jerusalem in 63 and 37 B.C."); Schalit Herodes
93-97, 764-768.
 NOTES TO THE APPENDIXES 235
13 CAH 10.50.
14 J.E. Seaver, "Publius VentidiusNeglected Roman Military Hero," CJ 47
(1951-1952), 278.
15 Ganttr Provinzialverwaltung 41.
16 Augustus 1.230; 2.112 n23.
17 Quellen 49-54, 60.
18 Architect 121-122.
19 Parthia 114.
20 RE 8A.807 = Ventidius 5.
21 MRR 2.383.
22 T.V. Buttrey Jr, "The Denarius of P. Ventidius," ANSMusN 9 (1960), 104.
23 Mommsen StR 1.125 n2; Gundel RE 8A.807; Seaver, op. cit. 277-278; B.
Schleussner, Die Legaten der rmischen Republik (Mnchen, 1978), 171.
24 Ganter Provinzialverwaltung 41; RE 4A. 1628 = Syria 3N (Honigmann)
(where Ventidius is called proconsul of Syria for 39/38); MRR 2.383, 393; Kleine
Pauly 5.1170-1172 (V. had proconsular imperium for 39/38); Buttrey, op. cit.
107; T.P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C. ta AJ). 14 (Oxford,
1971), 271-272 (474) (V. was proconsul of Asia and Syria, 40-38).
25 Cf. Brcklein Quellen 55-56.
26 E.g., Haines Pronto (Loeb) ad loa, and Index Nominum, p344.
27 R. Syme, Sallust (Berkeley, 1964), 223.
28 "SallustGeschichtsdenker oder Parteipublizist?," SO 47 (1972), 70-78.
Contra, supporting the view that Sallust wrote Ventidius' speech, A, La Penna,
"Ancora su Sallustio e Ventidio Basso," Maia 24 (1972), 349-352.
29 E.g., V. Gardthausen, "Die Scheidung der Octavia und die Hochzeit der
Kleopatra," Neue Jahrbcher fr das klassische Altertum 39 (1917), 161-164; K.
Kraft, "Zu Sueton, Divus Augustus 69.2: M. Anton und Kleopatra," Hermes 95
(1967), 496-499; Scardigli Rmerbiographien 148; E.G. Huzar, "Mark Antony:
Marriages vs. Careers," CJ 81 (1986), 107 n36.
30 H. Bengtson, Herrschergestalten des Hellenismus (Mnchen, 1975), 300-
301. '_. -
31 J. Kromayer, "Kleine Forschungen zur Geschichte des zweiten Triumvirats,"
Hermes 29 (1894), 582-584; Tarn, CAH 10.55, 66; Taylor Divinity 125;
Bengtson, op. cit. 300-301; Idem Antonius 194, cf. 20; Scuderi Commento 69,
79; Huzar, loc. cit.; Idem, Antony 168.
32 Cf. Tarn, CAH 10.66.
33 Tarn, loc. cit.; H. Volkmann, Cleopatra: A Study in Politics and Propa
ganda (New York, 1958), 121-122; Bengtson Antonius 193-194; M. Grant,
Cleopatra (London, 1972), 186.
34 Grant, op. cit. 117; cf. Sen. Suas. 1.6.
35 BMCRep. 2.510-513, 515-519; cf. U. Kahrstedt, "Frauen auf antiken
Mnzen," Klio 10 (1910), 291-293.
36 BMCRep. 2.525; Taylor Divinity 128-129; Kahrstedt, op. cit. 292-293;
O.J. Brendel, "The Iconography of Marc Antony," in M. Renard, ed., Hommages
Albert Grenier, Collection Latomus 58 (Bruxelles, 1962), 367; Grant, op. cit.
135-136. -
37 P. Lederer, "Two Unpublished Greek Coins," NC 18 (1938), 65-75.
Lederer's date is rejected by Grant (Imperium 368-369).
236 NOTES TO THE APPENDIXES

38 J.N. Svoronos, Ta Nouiauaxo xov Kpxov tv riToXeuavcov (Athinai,

1908), 4.366-370, 386-391.
39 T.V. Buttrey Jr, "Thea Neotera on the Coins of Antony and Cleopatra,"
ANSMusN 6 (1954), 96-98, cf. 106-109.
40 T.C. Skeat, The Reigns of the Ptolemies, Mnchener Beitrge zur
Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 39 (Munich, 1954;. rpt. 1969),
18. Cleopatra's 19th regnal year extended from 1 September 34 to 30 August 33.
41 H.R. Baldus, "Eine Mnzprgung auf das Ehepaar Mark Anton-Kleopatra
VII," GNS 33 (1983), 5-10. Still, Baldus leaves open the possibility that the
marriage took place in 37.
42 A.B. Brett, "A New Cleopatra Teteadrachm of Ascalon," AJA 41 (1937),
460-462; H. Seyrig, "Sur les res de quelques villes de Syrie," Syria 27 (1950),
40, 43-46; Grant Imperium 369-371;' Volkmann, op. cit. 123; Bengtson
Herrschergestalten 301. The clue to this double-dating is found in Eus. Chron.
1.170 (ed. Schoene) and in Porphyrius of Tyre (Jacoby FGrH 2.1203).
43 Kraft (op. cit. 496-499) suggests that the reading should be emended to
uxor mea est?, being one in a cascade of questions by Antony in the letterr This
ingenious proposal is adopted by J.M. Carter, ed., Suetonius Divus Augustus
(Bristol, 1982), 191; and favoured by Scardigli Rmerbiographien 148; but
Bengtson {Herrschergestalten 300; Antonius 194) treats it as specious, arguing
that, if Antony had wanted to state that Cleopatra was not his wife, he would have
written unequivocally uxor mea non est. (It should be noted, however, that
Bengtson favours 37 as the year of the marriage.)
44 T.R. Holmes, "When Did Antony Marry Cleopatra?" in Architect 227-231.
45 Non vidi : CP. Johnson, "Mark Antony, Man of Five Families," Journal
of the Society for Ancient Numismatics 4 (1972-1973), 21-24; E. Volterra,
"Ancora sui matrimonio di Antonio e Cleopatra," in Festschrift W. Flume (Kln,
1978), 1.205-212.
46 Syme Revolution 460. See on 50.16.1-30.4.
47 M.P. Charlesworth, CAH 10.90, 99. On the methods and subjects, see
Scott MAAR 11 (1933), 33-39; CAH 10.90-99; Jal Guerre Index.
48 Z. Rubin, Civil-War Propaganda and Historiography (Bruxelles, 1980), 6,
12, 16-17, 41-84.
49 StR 2.707-708, 718-720.
50 See F. Millar, "Triumvirate and Principate," JRS 63 (1973), 50-54, 61.
51 Syme Revolution 277 n6.
52 The literature is voluminous: in addition to Mommsen, see J. Kromayer,
Die rechtliche Begrndung des Principals (Diss. Marburg, 1888); W. Kolbe, "Der
zweite Triumvirat," Hermes 49 (1914), 273-295; A. Bauer, "Der Staatsstreich des
Octavianus im Jahre 32 v. Chr.," HZ 117 (1917), 11-23; U. Wilcken, "Der
angebliche Staatsstreich Octavians im Jahre 32 v. Chr.," Sitz, preuss. Akad.
Wiss., Philos.-Hist. Kl. (1925), 66-87; H. Dessau, "Der Staatsstreich des Jahres
32 v. Chr.," Philologische Wochenschrift 45 (1925), 1017-1023; Holmes
Architect 231-245 ("The Duration of the Triumvirate and the Alleged Coup d'tat
of 32 B.C."); Charlesworth, CAH 10.90-94; F. de Visscher, "Les pouvoirs
d'Octavien en l'an 32 av. J.C.," BIBR 29 (1938), 103-124; Syme Revolution 276-
279; K.-E. Petzold, "Die Bedeutung des Jahres 32 fr die Entstehung des
Principals," Historia 18 (1969), 334-351; E. Gabba, "La data finale dei secondo
 NOTES TO THE APPENDIXES 237
triumvirato," RF1C 98 (1970), 5-16; Idem, Appian lxviii-lxxix ("La data finale del
triumvirato," with bibliography to date); Fadinger Begrndung 18-21, 104-130
("Der Endtermin des 2. Quinquenniums"), 134-136, 214-222 ("Der angebliche
Staatsstreich Octavians"); de Martino Storia 4.92-103 (with bibliography to date);
P. Grenade, Essai sur les origines du Principat, Bibl. coles Franaises d'Athnes
et de Rome 197 (Paris, 1961), 1-42 ("La fin du Triumvirat"); H.W. Benario,
"Octavian's Status in 32 B.C.," Chiron 5 (1975), 301-309; E.W. Gray, "The
Crisis in Rome at the Beginning of 32 B.C.," PACA 13 (1975), 15-29; P. Anello,
"La fine del Secondo Triumvirato," in Philias Charin: Miscellanea di Studi Classici
in Onore di Eugenio Manni 1 (Roma, 1980), 103-114.
53 J. Linderski, "Rome, Aphrodisias and the 'Res Gestae: The Genera Uilitiae
and the Status of Octavian," JRS 74 (1984), 74, 79-80.
54 Fadinger Begrndung 291-295; cf. 51.1.1-2n.
55 See M. Grant, Roman Anniversary Issues (Cambridge, 1950), 88-90, 138-
139, 164-165.
56 On the Actian Era, see: O. Kaestner, De Aeris quae ab Imperio Caesaris
Octaviani constituto initium duxerint (Leipzig, 1890), 35; GardthaUsen Augustus
1.461; 2.248; U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypteri und Nubien (Leipzig
& Berlin, 1899), 1.788; M.N. Todd, "The Macedonian Era," ABSA 23 (1918-
1919), 212-213; Idem, "The Macedonian Era Reconsidered," in Studies Presented
to D.M. Robinson 2 (St Louis, 1953), 382-397; RE 22.2075-2077 = Princeps
(Wickert); Magie Roman Rule 2.1289 n37; H. Seyrig, "Antiquits
Syriennes,"Syr/a 27 (1950), 6, 14, 20-21, 31, 38; J. and G. Roux, "Un dcret du
politeuma des juifs de Brnik en Cyrnaque," REG 62 (1949), 283-285, 288-
298; J. Reynolds, JRS 49 (1959), 96-97; L. Robert, Hellenica 11-12 (1960), 553-
554; F. Papazoglu, BCH 87 (1963), 517-526; EJ. Bickermajin, Chronology of
the Ancient World (London, 1968), 73, 89; A.E. Samuel, Greek and Roman
Chronology. Calendars and Years in Classical Antiquity, Mller's Handbuch 1.7
(Mnchen, 1972), 247; Kleine Pauly 5.1487.
57 See DS 1.53-54 = Actia (Saglio); Gardthausen Augustus 1.393-394, 592-
593; 2.206 nl8; E.N. Gardiner, Greek Athletic Sports and Festivals (London,
1910), 168-169; L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Roma, 1953), Index,
s.v. "Aktia."
58 See Jos. BJ 1.398; AJ 15.268; Smallwood Jews 84 n78. For a hymn to
Actian Apollo, written ea A.D. 5-15 and containing commemoration of the deeds
of Augustus (Brit. Mus. Papyrus 256), see F.G. Kenyoh, RPh n.s. 19 (1895), 177-
179; D.L. Page, ed., Select Papyri (Loeb) 3.468-471.
59 Cf. Pliny HN 7.97; TLL 3.881-882 ("certamen"); DS 1.1080-1086 =
Certamina (Saglio).
60 For Dio.'s concern regarding the drain on the finances of cities of the
empire resulting from athletes' pensions, see 52.30.4-6n; Appendix 17, "The
Economic Burden of Athletes' Pensions."
61 Friedlnder Sittengeschichte 1.423-446; cf. 51.17.1-2n.
62 Cf. J.P.V.D. Baisdon, Romans and Aliens (London, 1979), 68-69.
63 M.I. Finley, "Race Prejudice in the Ancient World," The Listener 79.2027
(1968), 146-147.
64 J.G. Milne, A History of Egypt under Roman Rule, 3rd ed. (London, 1924),
271-276; Friedlnder Sittengeschichte 1.435-437.
238 NOTES TO THE APPENDIXES

65 Cf. A. Pelletier, Les oeuvres de Philon d'Alexandrie 31: In Flaccum (Paris,

1967), 170-171; E.M. Smallwood {Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium
[Leiden, 1961], ad Leg. 166) suggests that Philo possibly uses the term Aigyptioi
contemptuously of the Alexandrian Greeks.
66 See S.C. Fredericks, "Juvenal's Fifteenth Satire," ICS 1 (1976), 174-189;
G. Highet, Juvenal the Satirist (Oxford, 1954), 28-30, 149-153.
67 Cf. Frank Economic Survey 2.711-717; Lewis & Reinhold 2.378-383
(41, 43, 49, 52, 53).
68 H.A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs. Acta Alexandrinorum (New
York, 1954).
69 On the volatility and turbulent social conditions affecting Egyptians, see
also Rostovtzeff SEHRE 1.116-117, 126, 275-276, 417-418; 2.587-588 nl9; S.
Davis, Race-Relations in Ancient Egypt: Greek, Egyptian, Hebrew, Roman
(London, 1951), 146, 151; O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt,
2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1922; rpt. 1966), 4.330-332.
70 See Magie De Vocabulis 4-6, 43-45; Mason Greek Terms 30-31, 121-*24;
Talbert Senate 495. TepoiKJia for Senate appears also in Dio with some
frequency, as does cov8piov occasionally.
71 On the problem of the boule of Alexandria, see especially: U. Wilcken,
Grundzge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde 1.1 (Leipzig, 1912), 14-15, 214-
219; J.G. Milne, A History of Egypt under Roman Rule, 3rd ed. (London, 1924),
282-286 ("The Senate of Alexandria"); Holmes Architect 2.146-147 ("The Vexed
Question of an Alexandrian Scnrte"); PSl 10.95-101 (with a bibliography to
1932); H.I. Bell, "The Problem of the Alexandrian Senate," Aegyptus 12 (1932),
173-184; A. Piganiol, "Le statut augusten de l'Egypte et sa destruction," in
Septime congrs internationale de papyrologie, Genve 1952 (MH 10.3-4
[1953]), 193-202; H.A. Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs. Acta
Alexandrinorum (New York, 1954), 83-88; CPJ 2.150 (pp26-29), 2.153 (pp36-
55), with huge bibliography; P. Jouguet, La vie municipale dans l'Egypte
romaine, Bibl. coles Franaises d'Athnes et de Rome 104 (Paris, 1911), 25-34;
A.K. Bowman, The Town Councils of Roman Egypt, American Studies in
Papyrology 11 (Toronto, 1971), 3, 11-12; A. Birley, Septimius Severus. The
African Emperor (Garden City, 1972), 208-209; A. Moscadi, "Note a P.Lond.
1912," S1FC 47 (1975), 236-250; Geraci Genesi 176-182.
72 Cf. P. Benot and J. Schwartz, "Caracalla et les troubles d'Alexandrie en
215 aprs J.-C," tudes de Papyrologie [Socit Fouad I e r de Papyrologie] 7
(1948), 17-33.
73 Cf. R.A. Bauman, "Tribunician Sacrosanctity in 44, 36 and 35 B.C.," RhM
124 (1981), 166-183.
74 E.g., Mommsen StR 1.67-70; de Martino Storia 4.169-173; RE 22.2283-
2287 = Princeps (Wickert); Kleine Pauly 5.948-949 = Tribunus (Volkmann); Grant
Imperium 446-453. In general on the tribunicia potestas of Augustus, see the
splendid treatment of H. Last, "On the Tribunicia Potestas of Augustus," R1L 84
(1951), 93-110; Andersen Dio 25-32; Beranger Recherches 97-101; Hammond
Principate 79-84; P.L. Strack, "Zur tribunicia potestas des Augustus," Klio 32
(1939), 358-381; H. Castritius, Der rmische Prinzipat als Republik, Historische
Studien 439 (Husum, 1982), 22-30; L. Wickert, "Neue Forschungen zum
 NOTES TO THE APPENDIXES 239

rmischen Principat," ANRW 2.1.73-74; F. Guizzi, // principato tra 'res publica' e

potere assoluto (Napoli, 1974), 174, 187.
75 Cf. Aesch. Eu. 735, 741, 753, 795; Eur. IT 965-966, 1469-1472; El.
1265-1268; G.D. Thomson, ed., The Oresteia of Aeschylus 2 (Cambridge, 1938),
298-300. [Aristotle] Pr. 29.13 has a fcng disquisition on the moral and legal
justification for acquittal on a tie vote; but does not once mention "Athena's
vote." Documentation on the various interpretations of the force of the "Athena's
vote" can be found in M. Reinhold, "Last Words on the Calculus Minervae," CPh
76 (1981), 137-140.
76 On Dio's relationship with Philostratus and on possible allusions to him
in Dio's History, see Gabba RSI 67 (1955), 331-333; cf. Millar Study 19-20.
77 See S.J. de Lact, "O en est le problme de la juridiction impriale," AC 14
(1945), 145-163; J.M. Kelly, Princeps Iudex (Weimar, 1957), 17-18; A.H.M.
Jones, Studies in Roman Government and Law (New York, 1960), 53-65, 94-95;
Bleicken Senatsgericht 129-130; W. Litewski, "Die rmische Appellation in
Zivilsachen," RIDA 12 (1965), 367-368; E. Meyer, Rmischer Staat und
Staatsgedanke, 3rd ed. (Zrich, 1964), 548-549; H. Volkmann, Zur Rechtsprechung
im Principat des Augustus, 2nd ed., Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und
antiken Rechtsgeschichte 21 (Mnchen, 1969), 12, 172-174; P.Garnsey, "The
Lex Julia and Appeal under the Empire," JRS 56 (1966), 185-187; A.W. Lintott,
"Provocatio," ANRW 1.2.263-267; M. Reinhold, CPh 76 (1981), 137-140.
' Cf. Eus. Or. Const, ad sanctum coetum 19, who puts the length of
Augustus' rule at fifty-six years, six months; Eutr. 7.8.2-3: ab initio principat us
eius usque ad finem LVI annifuerunt.
79 On the various datings of Augustus' "monarchy," see in general Beranger
Recherches 25-28.
80 See J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (London, 1982), 40, 75-76.
81 See especially the excellent treatment of Dio's motivation in this passage
by Andersen (Dio 53-55).
82 On imperator in general, see D. McFayden, The History of the Title
Imperator under the Roman Empire (Diss. Chicago, 1920), 28-52; Vrind De
Vocabulis 31-35, esp. n65 and n67; R. Syme, "Imperator Caesar: A Study in
Nomenclature," Historia 7 (1958), 172-188 (-Papers 1.361-377); T.A. Abele, Der
Senat unter Augustus (Paderborn, 1907; rpt. New York, 1967), 2-3; Gardthausen
Augustus 1.527; 2.23; Grant Imperium 408-410, 440-442; D. Kienast, "Impera-
tor," ZRG 78 (1961), 419-421; RE 22.2278-2281 = Princeps (Wickert); L.
Lesuisse, "La nomination de l'Empereur et le titre d'Imperator," AC 30 (1961),
415-428; Hammond Principate 48-53; R. Combes, Imperator (Paris, 1966), 121-
154; OCD 542 = Imperator (Momigliano); Manuwald Dio 82-83; Campbell
Emperor 93-94.
On the Greek conception of imperator in the second and third centuries
A.D., and its translationswith paoiX.e the most commonsee A. Wifstrand,
"Autokrator, Kaisar, Basileus: Bemerkungen zu den griechischen Benennungen der
rmischen Kaiser," in DRAG MA, Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, ser. 2, 1
(1939), 529-539. But Dio always uses axoKpxojp, never otXewc (Mason
Greek Terms 119-120).
240 NOIESTOTHE APPENDIXES

83 See also P.Lond. 3.1178 (A.D. 194); IGRR 4.1519; C. Wessely, Corpus
Papyrorum Hermopolitanorum 1 (Leipzig, 1905; rpt. Amsterdam, 1965), S70, 72,
73, 76-78.
84 T. Mommsen (The Provinces of the Roman Empire from Caesar to
Diocletian, trans. W.P. Dickson, 1 [London, 1909], 289) was wrong in stating
that the imperial treasury took over the payment of pensions to victorious
.athletes.
85 G. Mautis, Une mtropole gyptienne sous l'empire romain, Hermoupolis-
la-Grande (Lausanne, 1918), 152. On the "sacred games" of the Roman empire,
and on athletes' pensions and the economic drain connected with them, see E.N.
Gardiner, Athletics of the Ancient World (Oxford, 1930), 106, 111-113; U.
Wilcken, Grundzge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde 2 (Leipzig, 1912),
.156-157; Mautis,- op. cit. 152-155, 199-203; L. Moretti, Iscrizioni
agonistiche greche (Roma, 1953), passim; Lewis & Reinhold 2.232-237.
 INDEXES
- The numbers refer to pages

1. Disputed Readings

49.3.3 25 52.22.1 193

49.5.1 26 52.22.5 194
49.17.2 42 52.41.3 210
51.1.2 120
51.12.2 135
52.21.8 192

2. Discussions of Selected PassagesfromOther Sources

Ancient Authors
Appian ///. 28 224 78-86 135-136
Florus 2.21.9 134- 135 80.1 139
Herodotus 3.80-82 167 81.2 137
Horace Carm. 1.14 186- 187 83.1 134
Hyginus 177L 125 86.5 146-147
Josephus AJ 14.487 54 SHA Sev. 17.2-3 228-229
Julian Ep. 51 139 Strabo 7.325 119
Justin 42.5.6-9 145 Suetonius
Livy 4.20.7 162 Caes. 56.6 127
26.16.9-10 141- 142 Aug. 28.1 166
Per. 134 161 TacnHis Ann, 1.2.1 150
Philostratus Vit. Vell*ius Patarculus
Soph. 2.3.568 230 2.^6.2 an 87.2 124
Plutarch Ant. 64.1 119 Vitrvius 9, praef. 1 226
69-77 130- 131
69.2-3 131

Im
in!scnpi
2
EJ 14 =ILS 91 RG 1.1 171
= CIL 6.702 140, 232 2 187
17 = ILS 81 121 3.1 124
ILS 85 232 4.1 35-36
8995 = CIL 4.3 157
3.14147.5 143 7.1 224
248 INDEXES

8.1 212 27.1 140

10.1 229 32.1 145
13.1 153 34.1 118-119
15.1 155-156
16.1 127-128 P. Oxy. 2820 143-144
21.3 156

3. Greek Words

pzn 98 vouunvia 88-89

ouA.euTTic 228 jtepi've*; 23
onH-OKpaiia 168 pwuaietv 97
Swaoteai 169 otpaxipxai 126
^ovoa 92-93 (ppo 37
jtapxo 205 i(rf|q>o, 'AOTIV 151, 230
itlxpojto 205 V
ioovouia 172
(iovapxa 168

4. Persons, Places, and Institutions

Aba, client queen in Cilicia, Aemilius Lepidus, Paullus, eos.

123 34 B.C., 77-78; as censor,
Abala, harbour in southwest 192
Italy, 27 Aemilius Saturninus, Q.,
Abgaros of Osrone, 59 praefectus praetorio under
Actian Era, 117-118, 225-226 Septimius Severus, 195
Actian Games, 120, 226 Aemilius Scaurus, M., exhibits
Actium, site of, 102-103; hippopotamus, 159
Battle of, 19, 83-85, 113. Aemilius Scaurus, son of
115; and principate of foregoing, pardoned b y
Octavian, 115-116, 1 1 8 , Octavian, 124
156-158 Africa, province(s) of, 35, 97
Adiatorix, client king of M. Agrippa, in Sicilian War,
Heraciea Pontica, 123; 20-30, 107, 217-218; in
execution of, 157 Illyrian campaign, 70, 7 3 ;
Aediles, scarcity of, 40, 79 as aedile, 40, 78-80, 8 7 ;
Aelius Coeranus, senator from building activities, 78; in
Egypt, 142 Actian campaign, 102, 103,
Aelius Decius Triccianus, in 104, 113-116; his military
Severan Age, 189 honours, 34, 155; h i s
Aelius Gallus, prefect of censorial power, 2 1 0 - 2 1 1 ;
Egypt, 143-144, 145 as model subordinate, 26,
Aemilius Lepidus, M., 167; as c o n f i d a n t of
conspiracy of, 127, 187 Octavian, 165-168; Dio's
"Speech of Agrippa," 170-
179
 INDEXES
Albanoi, conquered by
Canidius Crassus, 56, 59
Alchaudonius, Arab sheikh, 59
Alexander of Emesa, client
king, 123; his execution,
157
Alexander the Great, Octavian
sees mummy of, 139-140
Alexander Helios, son of
Antony and Cleopatra, 64,
74, 81, 91, 137-138; and
Donations of Alexandria,
76; at triumph of Octavian,
157
Alexandria, site of Antony's
triumphal procession, 76;
Donations of, 19, 76-77,
87, 137, 221-222; Octa-
vians propaganda against,
223; boule of, 141-142,
228-229
Alexandrians, Octavian's cle-
mency to, 139; Djo's con-
tempt of, 110, 141, 227-
228
Amphitheatre, of Statilius Tau-
rus, 159-160
Amyntas, client king of
Galatia and Pamphylia, 63,
104, 123, 132; captures
Sextus Pompey, 43-44
Antigonus, king of the Jews,
49, 50, 52, 53; his execu-
tion, 55
Antioch, Antony in, 55, 58
Antiochus I, king of Comma-
gene, 49; siege of his
capital Samosata, 52-53; his
daughter, 58
Antiochus II, king of Comma-
gene, 213
Antistius Reginus, C , lieu-
tenant of Sextus Pompey,
22; defects to Antony, 45
Antonia Maior and Antonia
Minor, daughters of Antony
249
and Octavia, 91-92, 111,
138
Antonius, M. (Antony), as au-
gur (36 B.C.), 38-39; and
death of Sextus Pompey, 42-
45; Eastern policy, 17-19,
45-46, 55-56, 58-59, 74-77;
Parthian expedition, 17-19,
45-46, 55-62; at siege of
Samosata, 49-50, 52; his
system of client rulers, 54-
55, 63, 122-123; eos. 34
B.C., 74, 80; and Armenia,
74-76, 81; and Artavasdes of
Media Atrbpatene, 81; his
triumphal celebration at
Alexandria, 76; his offer to
restore the republic (33
B.C.), 77, 98-99; eos. des-
ignate for $1 B.C., 85, 92,
101; his triumviral powers
in 32 B.C., 92-93; as
gymnasiarch of Alexandria,
95, 111; his marriage with
Cleopatra, 58, 64, 72, 90,
220-222; his enslavement to
Cleopatra, 64, 66, 94-95,
109, 133; donations to
Cleopatra, 63-65, 76-77;
behaviour towards Octavia,
65-66; worship of, as Neos
Dionysos and Osiris, 76,
(95-96, J10; at Actium, 105-
;109, 113-116; flight to
jEgyptJ 114-115, 121; his
troops absorbed by Octavian
after Actium, 125; his sui-
cide, 133, 136; his mauso-
leum, 92, 133, 136-137; his
will, 90-91, 108, 222-223;
damntio memoriae of, 146-
148; Dio's sketch of, 137.
See also Cleopatra.
Antyllus, son of Antony, 91-
92, 130; execution-t)f; 1-37-
250
Aphrodisias-Plarasa, Octavian
as patron of, 96, 122, 123-
124
Appellate jurisdiction, of Oc-
tavian/Augustus, 149-151,
230; Dio's proposals for,
205
Apollo, Octavian's favourite
god, 119; Palatine temple
of, 119
Apollophanes, lieutenant of
Sextus Pompey, 22 -
Appian, and Dio's sources for
Book 49, 17-19
Appuleius, Sextus, eos. 29
B.C., 155
Aquilius Florus, execution of,
124
Arabs, of Petra, 131-132
Aradus, besieged by Sosius,
52-53
Arches of triumph, for
Octavian in Rome, 146
Archelaus Sissenes, king of
Cappadocia, 63, 123
Areius Didymus, teacher of
Octavian, 139, 208
Ariarathes X of Cappadocia,
executed by Antony, 63
Armenia, Antony's route
through, 56, 57; annexed by
Antony, 74-76; given to
Alexander Helios, 76; dis-
membered by Antony, 81
Army, after Actium, 117-118,
125, 174-175; Dio's pro-
posals for auxilia, 193-194;
for a frontier garrison force,
199
Arruntius, L., at Battle of
Actium, 113
Artacii, a Moesian tribe, 164
Artavasdes, king of Armenia,
55, 56, 57, 59, 60; betrayed
by Antony, 65, 74-75, 86,
223; execution of, 82, 130
Artavasdes, king of Media
Atropatene, 60, 65, 75-76,
81, 99, 106, 130, 138-139
Artaxata, capital of Armenia,
75
Artaxes, son of Artavasdes of
Armenia, 75, 81-82; as king
of Armenia, 138-139
Artemisium, in Sicilian War,
28
Asander of the Bosporus,
client king, 123
Asps, and suicide of Cleopatra,
135-136
Asinius Pollio, 106, 166 >
Astrologers, expelled from
Rome, 80
Ateporix of Caranitis, client
ruler, 123
Athenodorus, teacher of Oct-
avian, 208
Athens, and Octavian, 122
Athletes, pensions and privi-
leges of, 120, 201-202,
226, 233
Augurs, increase in numbers
of, 39
Augurium salutis populi, re-
vived by Octavian, 153
August, the month's import-
ance in Octavian's career,
148-149
Autobiography of
Octavian/Augustus, 6-9, 17-
19, 68, 74, 95, 105, 115,
157, 224
Basilica Aemilia, 78
Bastarnae, and Crassus's Balk-
an campaign, 160-163
Bellona, Temple of, 94
Bessi, and Crassus' Balkan
campaign, 163
Bocchus II, king of
Mauretania, 80
Bogud, king of Mauretania,
97; execution of, 102
 INDEXES
Bononia, Antony's veterans
in, 96-97
Boule of Alexandria, 141-142,
228-229
Brigandage, in Roman empire,
199, 216
Britain, invasion of
contemplated by Octavian,
72-73
Brundisium, Treaty of, 40; em-
barkation port to Epirus and
Greece, 102; Octavian visits
in 30 B.C., 127-128
Bureaucracy, imperial, Dio's
proposals for, 194
Caecilius Metellus Pius, Q., as
exemplum of relinquishing
sovereign power, 177-179
Caesariani, imperial freedmen,
196
Caesarion, son of Caesar and
Cleopatra, 76, 87, 91, 130,
223; execution of, 137
Calculus Minervae, see "Vote
of Athena"
Campania, source of land for
veterans in, 34
Canidius Crassus, P., Antony's
lieutenant in East, 59; in
Actian campaign, 104, 105;
execution of, 124
Capreae, acquired by Octavian,
213
Capua, source of land for
veterans, 34; status of, 141-
142
Caracal la, criticized by Dio,
141; as tyrant, 173, 177;
and debasement of coinage,
203; his massacre of Alex-
andrians, 229;
Carrhae, Battle of, 49, 50, 59,
60, 62, 219
Carrinas, C , campaign of,
153-154; triumph of, 157
251
Carthage, settlement of veter-
ans in, 128, 213
Cassandrea, veterans settled in,
128
Cassius Dio, [A] his life and
career: lr4; personal famil-
iarity with Actium, 102-103;
with Africa, 39; with Capua,
34; with Illyria, 97; with
Pannonia, 33, 67, 97, 125,
157; with Cleopatra's statue
in Rome, 158.
[B] his Roman History,
Books 49-52: date of
composition; 11-12, 67, 70,
180-182, 196; sources, 6-9,
17-19, 56-57, 68, 83, 129,
166; method and style, 9-
l l . f l l S , 137; problems of
compression, 6, 18-19, 22,
28-29, 65-66, 73, 97, 121,
160; rhetorical motifs, 24,
45-46, 78, 100, 107, 113,
114-115, 124-125, 132,
141, 145, 165-167, 173,
175, 176; prodigies, 3, 27,
36, 100, 101, 144, 147;
influences of and references
4 to the third century, 12-15,
26, 38, 40, 49, 67, 78, 84,
110, 117-118, 1 4 ^ 142,
145, 150, 151, 155? 164,
165-167, 169, 170-209
;
passim, 223.
' [C] his views on: Antony,
84; astrologers, 80; ath-
lete's pensions, 202, 233;
centralization, 122; con-
temporary affairs, 179-184;
discipline of troops, 32-33,
125; economic reforms,
199-200; education of
youth, 198-199; Egyptians,
54, 109, 110, 141, 227-
228; emperor worship, 207-
208; the equestrian order,
189; extravagance, 201-202;
252
finances of the empire, 174,
196-197; "human nature,"
26, 83-85, 215-217; Jews,
54; the masses, 191, 201;
the military budget, 199;
monarchy, 167, 170; Octa-
vian/Augustus, 12-14, 83-
85; the Principale as
monarchy, 117-119; reform
of coinage, 203; status o f
Italy, 194; taxation, 2 0 0 -
201; women, 110.
Cassius of Parma, partisan of
Sextus Pompey, 22; defects
to Antony, 45; execution of,
124
Cataphracts, Parthian, 48-49
Censorial powers, of Octavian,
210-212; Dio's proposals
for, 191-192
Centurions, rewards to (36
B.C.), 33-34; social
mobility of in third century,
197-198
Chalcidicum, built b y
Octavian, 158
Channaeus, Syrian ruler, 47
Chariot races, abolition
proposed by Dio, 202
Charmion, attendant o f
Cleopatra, 133, 136
Circeii, Lepidus' place o f
exile, 31
Circus Maximus, embellished
by Agrippa, 79
Claudius Pulcher, Appius,
triumph of, 78
Clemency, of Octavian, 124-
125, 139
Cleon of Gordioucome, client
ruler, 123
Cleopatra VII, as client queen,
93-94; marriage to Antony,
58, 64, 72, 90-91, 220-222;
donations of Antony to, 63-
65, 76-77, 221-222; as Nea
Aphrodite and Isis, 76, 95-
INDEXES
96, 110; declaration of war
against, 85, 93-94, 108; as
object of O c t a v i a n ' s
propaganda, 94, 109, 114,
129, 131, 223; at Battle of
Actium, 113-116; executes
prominent Egyptians, 129-
130; her alleged treachery
against Antony, 130-131;
her treasury, 133, 134-135,
144; meeting with Octavian,
134-135; her suicide, 135-
136; her mausoleum, 92,
133, 136-137; her statue in
Rome, 158; Dio's sketch of,
137 V
Cleopatra Selene, daughter of
Antony and Cleopatra, 64,
91, 137-138; and Donations
of Alexandria, 76; at
triumph of Octavian, 157
Client rulers, Antony's system
of, 54-55, 56, 63, 65, 122;
Octavian's system of, 122-
123
Cloaca Maxima, cleansed by
Agrippa, 79
Cluvius, C , promoted to
consular rank, 211
Cocceius Nerva, M., eos. 36
B.C., 20
Coinage, of Antony and
Cleopatra, 76-77, 221-222;
Dio's p r o p o s a l s for
reformation of, 203
Colonies, veterans settled in,
34, 127-128
Comarus, port near Actium,
103
Commodus, and the praefectus
praetorio, 195
Consensus, Octavian's drive
for, 92, 102
Consilium of the emperors,
186, 206
Constitutio Antoniniana, 142,
189-190, 193, 201
 INDEXES
Corcyra, Sextus Pompey at,
42; in Actian campaign,
100, 102
Corinth, in Actian campaign,
103; diolkos, 129
Cornelius Cinna, L., eos. 87-
84 B.C., as exemplum of
tyrant, 178
Cornelius Cinna, L., eos. 32
B.C., 89
Cornelius Gallus, C , in
Egyptian campaign, 130,
133; prefect of Egypt, 140;
suppresses rebellion in
Egypt, 143-144, 163
Cornelius Lentulus Cruscellio,
lieutenant of Sextus
Pompey, 22
Cornificius, L., eos. 35 B.C.,
in Sicilian War, 27-28, 65,
217-218; his triumph, 78;
his building activity in
Rome, 81
Cossyra, in Sicilian War, 21
Cotys, client king in Thrace,
123
Crassus, see Licinius Crassus,
M.
Crete, given by Antony to
Cleopatra, 65
Crown gold, 78; remitted by
Octavian, 156
Cryptic code, used by
Octavian, 127
Cursus bonorum, 190-191
Cydonia, given freedom, 123
Cyprus, Cleopatra's rule over,
65, 76
Cyrene, Cleopatra's rule, over,
65; given to Cleopatra
Selene, 76
Cyrrhestike, in northeastern
Syria, 47, 48
Dacians, and Crassus's Balkan
campaign, 159, 160-161
253
Dalmatia, Octavian's campaign
in, 73, 80, 112
Damntio memoriae, of
Antony, 146-148
Danube River, 71, 109-110
Dapyx, Getic king, 163
Dardanians, and Crassus's
Balkan campaign, 161
Declaration of war, against
Cleopatra, 93-94, 108
Deiotarus Philadelphus, client
king of Paphlagonia, 103,
123
Dellius, Q., favourite of
Antony, 75; with Antony in
Parthian campaign, 46;
deserts Antony before
Actium, 104, 109; source for
Parthian War, 19
Demochares, .lieutenant of
Sxtus Pompey, 22, 24, 29
Demokratia, Dio's conception
of, 86, 165-169, 172, 176,
184-185
Dentheletae, and Crassus'
Balkan campaign, 161-
Didius, Q., commands legions
in Syria, 131
Dio Chrysostom, on the
"Choice of Hercules," 171;
on kingship, 183-184
Discipline of troops, ' by
Antony, 61; Dio's views on,
32-33, J25 ^
Dium, veterans settled in, 128
Domitius ! Ahenobarbus, Cn.,
lieutenant of Antony, 43,
103; eos. 32 B.C., 77, 85,
87-89; adversities of, 88
Domus publica, of Augustus,
38
Donations of Alexandria, 19,
76-77, 87, 137, 221-222
Donatives (congiaria), of
Octavian/Augustus, 155-156
Dyrrachium, veterans settled
in, 128
254
Dynasteia, Dio's conception
of, 169, 174
Ecbatana, Parthian capital, 56
Economie reforms, proposed
by Dio, 199-200
Egypt, subject to Antony's
imperium, 87; ?'ctavian's
victory in, 129-138;
province of, 138-146, 148-
149, 227-228
Egyptians, Dio's contempt of,
54, 109, 110, 141-, 227-
228; in Roman Senate, 141-
142
Elagabalus, 181, 189, 207,
208
Elections, in the imperial
period, 186
Eleusinian Mysteries,-* Octavian
initiated into, 127
Embassies to Rome, Dio's
views on, 203-204
Emperors; Dio's views on
powers of, 186; judicial
powers of, 193, 205. See
also Princeps, Principate
Emperor worship, and
Octavian, 148-149, 154-
155; Dio's views of, 207-
208
Epaphroditus, freedman in
Alexandria, 134
Ephesus, center of emperor
worship, 154-155
Equestrian Order, Dio's view
of, 189; enrolment in, 190;
growing importance of, 140-
141; in imperial
bureaucracy, 206; social
mobility of, 197-198;
Maecenas as member, 40;
eques as governor of Egypt,
140-141 ,,
Etruria, insurrection in, 35, 41
Exhorlationes, before Battle of
Actium, 84; of Antony, 105-
INDEXES
109; of Octavian, 109-112;
cf. 24
v
C. Fannius, lieutenant of
Sextus Pompey, 22; defects
to Antony, 45
Festivals, conducted by the
magistrates, 190-191
Fetial rite, 94
Finances, Dio's proposals for
management of, 174, 196-
197
Flavius, L., eos. 33 B.C., 81
Fonteius, C , eos. 33 B.C., 81
Freedmen, war taxes imposed
upon, 101, 126; in tm\
imperial administration,
197, 208-209
Fufius Geminus, in Illyrian
campaign, 72
Fulvius Plautianus, C,
praefectus praetorio under
Septimius Severus, 195
Furnius, C , lieutenant of
Antony, 43, 44; pardoned
by Octavian, 124; promoted
to consular rank, 211
'*
Gallienus, status of quits in
reign of, 197
Games (ludi), 120, 155, 202,
226, 233
Gellius-Poplicola, L., eos. 36
B.C., 20; at Battle of
Actium, 104, 113
Genucla, Getic stronghold, 163
Getae, and Crassus's Balkan
campaign, 160-164
Gindaros, Battle of, 48-49, 50
Gladiators, loyal to Antony,
132; senators as, 159
Glaphyra, and Antony, 63
Harpax, used in the Sicilian
War, 25, 29-30
Herod, client king of Judaea,
49, 53-55, 63, 123; at
 INDEXES 255

siege of Samosjata, 52; Judaea, kingdom of Herod, 54-

captures Jeresalerri, 53-54, 55; part given to Cleopatra,
218-219; hosti ity to 64-65
Cleopatra, 64-65; his aid to Julia, Octavian's daughter, 137
Antony, 99; his aid to Julius Caesar, C , Octavian as
Octavian, 132 avenger of, 187; temple of,
"Human Nature," Dio's built by Octavian, 146, 158
conception of, 26, 83-85, Justice, Dio's proposals for
177, 215-217-' administration of, 175, 190-
191, 192-193i,j205
Iamblichus, sheikh of Emesa,
at Battle of Actium, 104 Keiris, and Crassus' Balkan
Iapodes, and Illyrian campaign, 163
campaign, 69, 70, 112,
156-157 Labienus, Q., in the East, 43,
Ibres, conquered by Canidius 47, 51,j 52, 21?
Crassus, 56, 59 Lampe, freedom given to, 123
Illyria, Octavian's campaign Laronius,: Q., in ; Sicilian War,
in, 66-71, 86, 107; and oath 28
to Octavian, 97 Legions, jof Antony, 55-66; of
Imperator, as acclamation for Octavian, 32-33
military victory, 162-163; Lepidus, provincia of, 30, 87;
as praenomen of Emperors, in Sicilian War, 20-21, 29,
169-170, 209, 210, 231- 217-218; deposed from
232 triumvirate, 30-31, 86;
Informers (delatores), in the exiled to Circeii, 31, 108;
imperial period, 208 as pontifex maximus, 31,
Insteius, M., at the Battle of 37; propaganda against, 223
Actium, 113 Lesbos, Sextus. Pompey at, 42-
Iotape, daughter of King 43
Artavasdes of Media Leucas, captured by Agrippa in
Atropatene, 75, 81, 138 Actian campaign, 103
Iras, attendant of Cleopatra, Libertas' (freedom), Dio's
133, 136 conception of, 83, 86, 173-
Isonomia, in Agrippa's 174; in propaganda of 32/31
speech, 172 B.C., 108-109, 223
Iulius Antonius, Antony's son Liburni, Illyrian people, 68-69
by Fulvia, 91-92, 138 Liburnian ships, 22, 114
Licinius Crassus, M., eos. 30
Janus, gates of closed by B.C., 26, 127; his campaign
Octavian, 153 against the Thracians and
Jerusalem, capture of in 37 Getae, 153-154, 160-164
B.C., 53-55, 218-219 Lilybaeum, in Sicilian War,
Jews, Dio's judgement of, 54 21, 28-29
Juba II, client king of Numidia Limen Glykys, in Actian cam-
and Mauretania, 80, 137-138 paign, 103 -
Lipara, in Sicilian War, 23-24
256
Lipari (Aeolian) Islands, 21,
23-24, 34
Livia, sacrosanctitas granted
to, 72
Livy, and Dio's sources for
Book 49, 17-18
Lurius, M., at Battle of
Actium, 113
Lusus Troiae, 79, 158, 198-
199
Lycomedes, client ruler of
Pontic Comana, 123
Lysanias, king of Chalcis,
executed by Antony, 64
Macrinus, 189, 229
Maecenas, C , confidant of
Octavian:,165-168;
administers Rome, 40-42,
126; Dio's "Speech ,of
Maecenas," 179-209
Malichus I, king of Nabataean
Arabs, 52, 64, 123, 131-
132
Marcellus, Octavian's nephew,
donative in his honour, 155-
156
Marcius Philippus, L., triumph
of, 78; building activity of,
81
Marius, C , as exemplum of
relinquishing sovereign
power, 177-179
Marius the Younger, as
exemplum of tyrant, 178
Marius Secundus, 229
Marriage of Antony and
Cleopatra, 58, 64, 72, 90,
220-222
Masses, Dio's attitude toward,
191, 201
Mauretania, province of, 65,
80, 97 * censor, 192
Mausoleum, of Antony and
Cleopatra, 92, 133, 136-
137; of Octavian/Augustus,
136-137
INDEXES
Media Atropatene, realm of
Artavasdes, . 75; Antony's
route through, 56
Memmius, C , .eos. 32 B.C.,
77
Menas (Menodorus), lieutenant
of Sextus Pompey in
Sicilian War, 22-23; in
Illyrian campaign, 71
Messala, see Valerius Messala
Corvinus, M.
Messana, in Sicilian War, 21,
25-26, 30, 42
Messius, L., 101
Methone, in Actian campaign,
102
Metulum, siege of in Illyrian^
campaign, 69-70
Midaum, Sextus Pompey
captured at, 44
Miletus, Sextus Pompey
executed at, 45
Minucius Thermus, Q.,
lieutenant of Sextus
Pompey, 22; defects to
Antony, 45
Misenum, Treaty of, J22, 31
Mithradates II, client king of
Commagene, 123
Moesians, and Crassus's
Balkan campaign, 159, 161-
164
Monaeses, Parthian noble, 56,
58-59
Monarchy, Dio's conception
of, 117, 167-168, 173-174,
176; Dio's adherence to, 12-
15, 165-166; after Actium,
85, 86
Munatius Plancus, L., partisan
of Antony, 44, 45; defects
to Octavian, 85, 90; as
Mutina, Battle of (43 B.C.),
Ill
Mutiny, against Octavian (36
B.C.), 32-33; in Illyrian

campaign, 69; against
Antony (44 B.C.), 111-112
Myle, Battle of, 24-29, 217-
218
Mytilene, base of Sextus
Pompey, 42-44
Nasidius, Q., lieutenant of
Sextus Pompey, 22; defects
to Antony, 45; at Battle of
Actium, 103
Naulochus, Battle of, 29-30,
217-218
Naval forces, at Actium, 96,
106
Nicaea, native city of Dio, 2,
44; center of emperor
worship, 154-155
Nicias of Cos, client ruler, 123
Nicomedia, 44; center of
emperor worship, 154-155
Nicopolis, in Armenia Minor,
75; in Egypt, 145; in
Greece, 103, 120-121
Nonius Balbus, tribune, 89
Nonius Gallus, M., military
operations, of, 153-154
Norbanus Flaccus, C , triumph
of, 78
Oaths, to Antony and Octavian
before Actium,' 97-98; to
Octavian, 151-152, 224-225
Obodas III, king of Arabia
Petraea, 131-132
Oclatinius Adventus, M., in
Severan period, 189
Octavia, with Antony in
Athens and Tarentum, 58;
her efforts to reconcile
Antony and ' Octavian, 65-
66; sacrosanctitas granted
to, 72; her treatment by
Antony, 220-222, 223; di-
vorced by Antony, 85, 90,
111, 220; rears Antony's
children, 138
257
Octavian, [A] major events in
his career: war with Sextus
Pompey, "Td-lO, 107;
jnutiny against, in 36 B.C.,
32-33; honours given to in
36 B.C., including ovatio,
35-38, 89; Illyri*n
campaign, 19, 66-71, 86;
eos. 33 B.C., 74, 80; eos.
des. 31 B.C., 92; offers to
restore Republic, 97, ;98,
170; at Battle of Actium,
109-116; settles veterans,
127-128; in Egypt, 129-
145; as successor of the
pharaons, 148-149; his
triple triumph, 72, 146,
156-158; importance of
month of August, 148-149
[B] his Principale: date of
its beginning, 118-119,
169-170, 210, 225-226,
231. See also Appellate
JurUdict^n,_Cljent_[ Rulersj._
Imperator, Monarchy,
Principate, Senate,
Tribunician Power
[C] his character and accom-
plishments: Dio's
judgement, 12-14, 17-19,
45, 83-85; his clemency,
124-125, 139; his devotion
to Apollo, 119-120; and
lusinianj Mysteries, 127;
nis( sickly} nature, 107. See
"J als Autobiography.
Octavius, M., at the Battle of
Actium, 113
Odrysae, and Crassus' Balkan
campaign, 162, 163
Opllius Macrinus, praefectus
praetorio, 196
Oppius Statianus, lieutenant of
Antony, 60
Orodes, king of Parthia, 47,
58
258 INDEXES

Ovatio, of Octavian in 36 Pompeius Strabo, as exemplum

B.C., 35-37 of tyrant, 178
Ovinius, Q., execution of, 124 Pompey the Great, as
exemplum of relinquishing
Pacorus, Parthian prince, 47- sovereign power and of
49, 52, 58 tyrant, 177-178; and
Pannonia, province of, 67; its tyranny, 187; captures
name and character,^0-71 ; Jerusalem, 218-219;
Dio as governor ^d**ffiLj25 exhibits rhinoceros, 159
Papias, see Democfiares^' Pompey, Sextus, provincia of,
Papinian, praefectus/praetorio, 87; propaganda against,
196 ' 223; war in Sicily, 17-18,
Parthians, 17-19; campaigns 20-30, 217-218; flight to
of Ventidius and Antony the East, - 30, 42-44;
against, 45-50, 55-58; punishment of followers,
Octavian's diplomatic 31, 80; death of, 44-45, 8 6 .
negotiations with, 145-146, Pompey, Sextus, eos. 35 B.C.,
152 45, 65
Patrae, in Actian campaign, Pontifex Maximus, Lepidus as,
101 31, 37
Patricians, increase in number Porticus Octavia, 80-81
by Octavian, 80, 212 Portus Iulius, 20-21
Paxos, 103 Postumius, Q., 104
Pergamum, center of emperor Praefectus Annonae, 196
worship, 154-155 Praefectus Feriarum Latinarum,
'"Pharnabazus, king of the 78
Ibres, 59 Praefectus Praetorio, powers
Philippi, Battles of (42 B.C.), of, 41, 191, 195, 196, 205;
I l l ; veterans settled in, 128 Dio's proposed reforms of
Phraaspa, in Media Atropatene, powers, 195
Antony's objective in Praefectus Urbi, powers of, 40-
Parthian campaign, 57, 60- 41, 191, 205; Dio's
61 proposed reforms of powers,
Phraates IV, king of Parthia, 126, 191
56, 58, 61, 82, 86, 145- Praefectus Vigilum, 196
146, 152 Praetorian Guard, 177
Pinarius Scarpus, L., Priesthoods, Octavian's
commands troops in Cyrene, appointments to, 152
130, 133 Principate, Augustus' reign as
Plarasa-Aphrodisias, Octavian the norm, 182-183;
as patron of* 96 beginning of, 169-170,
Plinius Rufus, L., lieutenant of 210; Dio's conception of,
Sextus Pompey, 22 117
Plutarch, and the sources of Proculeius, C , in Alexandria
Dio, 17-19 with Octavian, 134
Polemo, client king of Pontus, Prodigies, in Dio, 3, 27, 36,
60, 63, 65, 75, 81, 99, 123 100, 101, 144, 147
 INDEXES
Propaganda,, of 32-31 B.C.,
62, 86-87, 92, 95, 100,
105, 222-223; against
Cleopatra, 94, 114, 129,
130-131
Provinces, Dio's proposals for
. administration of, 192-195
Psylli, 136
Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of
Antony and Cleopatra, 64,
91, 130, 138; and
Donations of Alexandria, 76
Purple, restriction on use of,
39-40
Red Sea, 130, 131
Religion, Dio's support of
Roman state cult, 208. See
also Emperor Worship
Republic, Dio's conception of,
168-170, 172, 176. See
also Demokratia
Rhinoceros, exhibited by
Octavian, 159
Rhoemetalces, client ruler in
Thrace, 103, 123
Roles, client ruler of the
Getae, 162
Roma, temples of, 154-155
Rome, centre of Empire, 189;
adornment approved by Dio,
201
Sacrosanctitas, of Octavian,
38, 229-230; of Octavia and
Livia, 72
Salassi, Alpine tribe, 68-69,
73, 112
Samos, denied status as free
city, 123-124; Octavian's
headquarters there, 127, 129
Samosata, siege of, 49-50, 52-
53
Scribonius Curio, execution of,
124
Scribonius Libo, L., father-in-
law and partisan of Sextus
259
Pompey, 22, 30; defects to
Antony, 45
Seal, of Octavian/Augustus,
126
Sella curulis, granted to
? Octvianr9-
Sempronius Atratinus, L., eos.
34 B.C., 74
Senate and Senators, in 32
B.C., 89-90; with Antony,
90; lectio of, 210-212;
membership, in Dio's time,
188-189; native origins of
senators, 188-189;
Egyptians in Senate, 141;
senators as gladiators, 159;
minimum age for admittance,
190; senators as provincial
governors, 192; residence
requirement for senators,
212-23; Dio's concern for
dignity of Senate, 204;
Dio's proposals for judicial
powers of Senate, 204
Sentius Saturninus Vetulo,
lieutenant of Sextus Pom-
pey, 22; defects to Antony,
45
Septimius Severus, Dio's view
of, 181-183, 199; and boule
of Alexandria, 141-142,
228-229; and his generals,
26; and the praefectus
praetorio, 195; and the;
Senate, iI88-189; and pro--
paganda,: 222-223;
Sertorins, as exemplum of
tyrant, 178
Severus Alexander, policies of,
179-183, 195, 206, 207-
208
Ship of State, image of, 186-
187
Sicily, war against Sextus
Pompey in, 20-30, 217-218;
punished by Octavian, 32
260
Siscia, captured by Octavian,
67; cf. 71
Sitas, king of Dentheletae,
161, 162
Slavery, of Antony to
Cleopatra, 94-95, 133; of
Egypt, 143; of the Roman
people, 171
Slaves, in the Sicilian War,
23, 31, 107
Sosius, C , lieutenant of
Antony, 52-53, 58; eos. 32
_ B.C., ,. 77,' 85, 87-89;
captures Jerusalem, 53-54,
218-219; his building
activity in Rome, 81; at
Battle of Actium, 104, 108,
113, 114; pardoned by
Octavian, 124; his triumph,
55, 78
Sources of Dio, for Books 49-
50, 17-19; for Illyrian
campaign, 68, 156-157; for
Parthian _ campaign, of
Antony, 46, 56-57; for
years 32-31 B.C., 84; for
. -Battle of Actium, 17-19,
105-106, 113; for campaign
in Egypt, 129; for Crassus's
Balkan campaign, 164; for
Agrippa-Maecenas debate,
166-167
Spolia opima, denied to
Crassus, 162
Standards, military, retrieved
by Octavian, 74; by
Antony, 81; by Crassus,
163
Statilius, Q., removed from
' Senate, 211
Statilius Taurus, T., marshal of
Octavian, 35, 153-154; in
war against Sextus Pompey,
20-21; in Illyrian campaign,
73-74; triumph of, 78; at
Battle of Actium, 103; his
INDEXES
building activity in Rome,
81, 159-160
Strato, client ruler of Amisus,
123
Sulla, as exemplum of
relinquishing sovereign
power, 177-179; his
reforms, 179; his death, 187
Syria, 47, 48, 49, 219
Tarcondimotus Philopator,
client king, 123, 132; at
Battle of Actium, 104
Tarentum, in Sicilian War, 20-
21, 23; Treaty of, 58, 137
Tarius Rufus, L., at Battle ^
Actium, 104
Taurisci, Pannonian tribe, 68-
69, 112
Tauromenium, in Sicilian War,
26-28; punishment of, 32
Taxation, Dio's reform
proposals on, 200-201
Taxes, imposed by Octavian
for wars, 37, 83j 101, 106,
126; in Egypt, 144-145
Terentius Varro, [A.?],
conqueror of Salassi, 69
Testudo, manoeuvre of by
Antony, 61-62
Theatre of Pompey, 100; of
Dionysus at Athens, 105
Thrace, and Crassus's Balkan
campaign, 163
Thucydides, influences of on
Dio's thought, style, and
wording, 14, 21, 23, 24-25,
26, 27-28, 29, 60, 83-84,
107, 112, 115, 166-167,
171,, 175, 177, 184, 187,
206, 27,'21S217
Tiberius, campaign of in Pan-
nonia, 71
Tigranes of Armenia, 139
Tiridates II, pretender to
Parthian throne, 145-146
 INDEXES
Tisienus Gallus, lieutenant of
Sextus Pompey, 22, 28-29,
217-218
Titius, M., lieutenant of
Antony, 22, 44, 103;
abandons Antony, 85, 90;
executes Sextus Pompey, 44-
45
Triballians, and Crassus'
Balkan campaign, 161
Tribunician Power, of Octa-
vian/Augustus, 38, 149-151,
210-211, 229-230
Tribunes, subsellia of, 38, 89;
decline ' in importance of,
149-150
Triumphal Arches, of Octavian,
146
Triumphs, of Octavian, 72,
146, 156-158; of Ventidius,
50-51, 220; of Sosius, 55;
of Crassus, 163. See also
Ovatio
Triumvirate, termination of,
84, 89, 92-93, 224-225
Troiae Lusus, see Lusus Troiae
Turullius, D., partisan of
Antony, 132-133; execution
of, 124
Tyndaris, in Sicilian War, 25-
27, 28
Tyranny, in speech of
Agrippa, 170-171, 173, 179
Ulpian, praefectus praetorio
under Severus Alexander,
195
Universalism, Dio's proposals
for, 182-183, 186, 194,
201-202
Utica, rewarded by Octavian,
39
Valerius Comazon, P., in
Severan period, 189
Valerius Messala, M., eos. 32
B.C., 89
261
Valerius Messala Corvinus,
M., in war against Sextus
Pornpcy, 39; his campaign
against Slassi, 69, 73; eos.
31 B.C.; 101; governor of
Syria, 132
Valerius Messala, PotituS, eos.
29 B.C., 155, 157
Ventidius (Bassus), P., and
Antony, 26; victories over
Parthians, 45-50, 219; his
triumph, 50-52; his
triumphal oration, 220
Venus~Genetrix, temple of in
Rome, 77
Vestal Virgins, sacrosanctitas
of, 72
Veterans, bonuses to after
Sicilian War, 33-34; of
Antony, in Italy, 96-97;
settlement of in 30 B.C.,
127-128
Vice-censor, proposed by Dio,
191-192
Victory, statue of, 158
Vitellius, P., procurator of
Augustus, 159
Vitellius, Q., as gladiator, 159
Volcatius Tullus, L., eos. 33
B.C., 80
"Vote of Athena" (Calculus
Mine^vae), 149-151, 230
Zeugma, bridgehead into
JPartMa, 47-48, 57
Zober, king of Albanoi, 59