Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T18:52:15.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Some Fragments of the Propaganda of Mark Antony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. P. Charlesworth
Affiliation:
St. John's College, Cambridge

Extract

The civil war which ended in the victory of Octavian and the suicide of Antony and Cleopatra is one of the most exciting but most obscure periods of Roman history, obscure mainly because the victor succeeded in imposing bis version of affairs upon his countrymen and through them on posterity. That is not to say that his version is necessarily completely false: the danger that threatened Rome was a real one, the national feeling that resulted in the coniuratio totius Italiae of 32 B.C. and that inspired Virgil and Horace later was not an artificial growth, though it was carefully tended. But in kindling the requisite war-feeling and in rousing the necessary enthusiasm both sides had to propagand for themselves, and in ancient times propaganda often became a matter of personal abuse and mud-slinging. In this Octavian's agents were perhaps more successful, though few nowadays (save writers of sensational novels) would accept the conventional portraits of Antony and Cleopatra as anywhere near the truth. But Antony's propaganda, though not so effective, was not obliterated by Octavian's victory; indeed a great deal of it is still preserved and masquerades as fact in histories of the period, where Octavian's personal character suffers badly.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 172 note 1 See, for example, Tarn, W. W., The Battle of Actium, in J.R.S. XXI (1931), especially pages 196198Google Scholar.

page 172 note 2 For a discussion of the Antonian invectives against Cicero see Piotrowicz, L.in Charisteria, Casimiro de Morawski septuagenario oblata ab amicis collegis discipulis, Cracoviae, 1922, pp. 221230Google Scholar.

page 172 note 3 In Class. Phil. XXIV (1929), p. 133Google Scholar.

page 172 note 4 Charisius (ed. Barwick), p. 100. 23; p. 164. 6.

page 175 note 1 For a criticism of the story see Carcopino, J. in Revue Historique, CLXI (1929), p. 225Google Scholar.

page 175 note 2 A criticism which I owe to Professor A. D. Nock.

page 176 note 1 It is curious that Shuckburgh, in his edition of Suetonius' Vita divi Augusti, though clearly recognizing the controversial nature of the charge (p. 123), yet spoke on p. 43 as though the affair were sober history.

page 177 note 1 A reference to the ludicrous story that Octavian stabbed Hirtius in the back and poisoned Pansa. Rumour made Glyco, the physician, the agent for the poisoning, but cf. ad Brutum, I. 6. 2.