Mark Antony

[Zeke]

Ok I am sure all of us have seen the last instalment of the series of Rome, where they epically make Mark Anathony die like a "True Roman."

 

From my understanding of the guy he was a preety volupscious character, capricious, arrogant, indulgent, a heavy alcoholic, a gambaler, and a ruthless solider who didn't really care about the Republic to the slightest.

He grew up in the streets of Rome to a semi-noble family and was known for his thugish ways when he was a teeanger. Latter in life to escape is mounting debt he fled to Athens and studied rhetoric. Upon returning to Rome he joined up with Caeser's Legions and made a name for himself. Today when someone mentions Marcus Antonius, images are conjured up about a man who was a dashing commander, Caeser's chief leutienant and the charming lover of Cleopatra.

 

But is he really the man everyone potrays him to be? Or his legacy a romanticied shakesphere description. Is he a larger then life hero? Or was he just a sexually crazed coward...who did indeed betray his home land for lust? Who is the real Mark Anathony?

 

-Zeke

[Northern Neil]

Ok I am sure all of us have seen the last instalment of the series of Rome...

We havent!

 

Here is the real man:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00000K52T?tag=un...DT4R6CCXCS&

 

Seriously though, various coins of the time show a thick set, almost brutish looking man with a thick neck and bulging eyes. This is shown on a thread elsewhere on this forum. That at least rules out the 'dashing' bit. As for the rest, From what I've read, I think what the contemporary sources miss out, rather than say, that lead the series makers to portray Anthony as they do.

[caldrail]

The real Marc Antony? I see him as someone who was waiting for his chance to rule. It comes as no suprise to me that he was Caesars ally at the beginning, and I think he was hoping to step into his shoes at some point. Notice also that incident during a feast of the Lupercalia, when Marc Antony took part as one of the runners and tried at least twice to present Caesar with a crown. What does that say? Well, he certainly wasn't afraid to act the giddy goat in public, and it certainly proves he meant to support Caesars attempt at power. Antony was scratching Caesars back for all he was worth. But - and this is an important point - when Antony refused to take part in the assasination plot he said nothing to Caesar. He wasn't going to sully his hands with betraying Caesar openly, but instead preferred to wait and take advantage of events. Which indeed he tried to. Antony also comes across as someone with much less political savvy than Caesar. He must have known that marrying Cleopatra was going to cause him problems, yet he considered that her political clout was worth the effort. Did he actually love her? Yes, I think he did fall for her charms. Ceopatra comes across as a woman who knew she could pull the blokes and was a little mercenary about it when it suited her. I wonder if her attempt to speak to Octavian after Antony's death was her chance to pull him too? If so, then Octavian was too wiley to be caught by that one.

 

So - We have a somewhat impulsive man, an opportunist, a man who readily licks rear ends in the pursuit of his ambitions, and ultimately someone with only mediocre political talent.

[Ursus]

Antony's figure is discolored somewhat by Augustan propoganda. However, even with that, it's hard to see what kind of program he had for Rome beyond being a self-indulgent Hellenistic style god-king.

 

As for whether or not he was "handsome and dashing" and "loved" Cleopatra is beside the point. They needed each other for their mutual bid to power.

[caldrail]

As for whether or not he was "handsome and dashing" and "loved" Cleopatra is beside the point. They needed each other for their mutual bid to power.

Very much the point. Despite the politics, it shows Antony as capable of being led. The average roman male regarded 'love' as something akin to emotional slavery. We know they did fall in love - they were humans after all and grafitti at Pompeii from one love-struck man proves it. Whilst Antony was a general in his own right, with up to thirty legions plus a large fleet of galleys at his disposal prior to Actium, he was nonetheless not as strong emotionally as some of the other contenders. He did after all commit suicide after he lost Actium in a fit of despair. Cleopatra at least tried to see if she could get out of difficulty first.

 

PS - Having read a bit more about Antony, I discover that after Actium he retreated to Egypt and tried to defend it, so my arguement doesn't hold up. I would have been more impressed if he'd taken to the hills a la spartacus, but then is that possible in Egypt? I stand by my original comments however.

Edited April 3, 2007 by caldrail

[Primus Pilus]

I would have been more impressed if he'd taken to the hills a la spartacus, but then is that possible in Egypt? I stand by my original comments however.

 

An interesting question. I am inclined to think that any such notion would have been contemptible for a Roman like Antony, even in his state of oriental influence. It would've been possible I should think... Egypt is a big place, but I'm afraid I'm largely unfamiliar with the habitability beyond the Nile region in ancient times. Nubia resisted a few Augustan era attempts so if arrangements could've been made, who knows. But then again, why would the Nubians have cared about helping a defeated Roman general and the queen of their northern rivals.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

The real Marc Antony? I see him as someone who was waiting for his chance to rule. It comes as no suprise to me that he was Caesars ally at the beginning, and I think he was hoping to step into his shoes at some point...when Antony refused to take part in the assasination plot he said nothing to Caesar. He wasn't going to sully his hands with betraying Caesar openly, but instead preferred to wait and take advantage of events.

 

Wow! what a poor amateur scholar I am...when I read the part that I emboldened in your quote above caldrail, I thought surely caldrail is wrong...Anthony was not officially aware of the plot...I was quite surprised to find out according to Plutarch in his bio of Anthony, he was! I had never known this about Anthony.

 

Here is the passage in case anyone else wasn't aware (Plutarch, Life of Anthony, Chap. 13):

 

"...and when they were taking count of the friends whom they could trust for their enterprise, they raised a question about Antony. The rest were for making him one of them, but Trebonius opposed it. For, he said, while people were going out to meet Caesar on his return from Spain, Antony had travelled with him and shared his tent, and he had sounded him quietly and cautiously; Antony had understood him, he said, but had not responded to his advances; Antony had not, however, reported the conversation to Caesar, but had faithfully kept silence about it."

 

This puts things in a whole new light for me looking at Anthony as an opportunist (as presented above). I had always found Anthony's behaivor strange in the events directly before and after the assasination. Offering the diadem-->hiding as if he were a slave-->the offer of amnesty-->showing the bloody toga at the funeral. I had always thought that he was just waiting for his shot, his conversation with Trebonius (and more importantly his failure to tell Caesar!) just solidifies it with me.

 

By offering Caeasar the diadem he was just expiditing the process. If Caesar accepts and more importantly the people accept then Anthony is in good with the new king and maybe becomes successor. If Caesar/the masses refuse, it still fuels the conspirators to knock off Caesar and he can move in without doing any of the dirty work but still reap the benefits. Obviously, Octavian was the x-factor he was unaware of.

 

Thanks for bringing this to light for me caldrail!

[Primus Pilus]

Hang on though PNS, there are conflicting reports. Plutarch doesn't mention that particular story in any of his other books, including Life of Brutus.

 

In Life of Caesar, Plutarch only says...

Well, then, Antony, who was a friend of Caesar's and a robust man, was detained outside by Brutus Albinus (actually Caius Trebonius) who purposely engaged him in a lengthy conversation.

 

Antony and Lepidus, the chief friends of Caesar, stole away and took refuge in the houses of others.

 

Not exactly the behavior of someone who was in on it. If the meeting with Antony and suggestion of tyrannicide took place, it would seem that Antony had dismissed it.

 

In "Life of Brutus" Plutarch further says (collaborating other books, though I do find it strange that in one book he wrote that it was Brutus Albinus and in two other he identified Trebonius)

When the senate had preceded Caesar into the session-room, the rest of the conspirators stationed themselves about Caesar's chair, as if they intended to have some conference with him, and Cassius is said to have turned his face towards the statue of Pompey and to have invoked it, as if it had understanding; but Trebonius drew Antony into conversation at the door and kept him outside.

 

Further...

All the rest of the conspirators, indeed, when they were discussing their enterprise, had been minded to kill Antony as well as Caesar, since he was a lawless man and in favour of a monarchy, and had acquired strength by familiar association with the soldiery; and particularly because to his natural arrogance and ambition he had added the dignity of the consulship, and was at that time a colleague of Caesar. But Brutus opposed the plan, insisting in the first place on a just course, and besides, holding out a hope of a change of heart in Antony. For he would not give up the belief that Antony, who was a man of good parts, ambitious, and a lover of fame, if once Caesar were out of the way, would assist his country in attaining her liberty, when their example had induced him to follow emulously the nobler course. Thus Antony's life was saved by Brutus; but in the fear which then reigned, he put on a plebeian dress and took to flight.

 

It's quite possible that Plutarch made small adjustments to each story for dramatic effect. (ie dressed as a slave in Life of Antony, but as a Plebe in Life of Brutus.)

 

Appian Civil Wars Book 2

Some thought that Antony ought to be killed also because he was consul with Caesar, and was his most powerful friend, and the one of most repute with the army; but Brutus said that they would win the glory of tyrannicide from the death of Caesar alone, because that would be the killing of a king. If they should kill his friends also, the deed would be imputed to private enmity and to the Pompeian faction.

 

The conspirators had left Trebonius, one of their number, to engage Antony in conversation at the door.

 

Antony fortified his house, apprehending that conspiracy was against him as well as Caesar. Lepidus, the master of the horse, being in the forum at the time, learned what had been done and ran to the island in the river where he had a legion of soldiers, which he transferred to the Field of Mars in order to be in greater readiness to execute Antony's orders; for he yielded to Antony as a closer friend of Caesar and also as consul.

 

Suetonius only mentions Antony in relation to the conspirators fearing him, which all sources have reported.

 

Cassius Dio book 44

Now when he finally reached the senate, Trebonius kept Antony employed somewhere at a distance outside. For, though they had planned to kill both him and Lepidus, they feared they might be maligned as a result of the number they destroyed, on the ground that they had slain Caesar to gain supreme power and not to set free the city, as they pretended; and therefore they did not wish Antony even to be present at the slaying. As for Lepidus, he had set out on a campaign and was in the suburbs. When Trebonius, then, talked with Antony, the rest in a body surrounded Caesar, who was as easy of access and as affable as any one could be; and some conversed with him, while others made as if to present petitions to him, so that suspicion might be as far from his mind as possible.

 

I can't recall Cicero ever getting into any specifics on Antony's potential involvement in any letters or the Philippics.

[Publius Nonius Severus]

That's a lot of info PP, thanks!

 

It's quite possible that Plutarch made small adjustments to each story for dramatic effect. (ie dressed as a slave in Life of Antony, but as a Plebe in Life of Brutus.)

 

Plutarch was usually pretty good at staying consistent across all of biographies of contemporaries so I think your theory of him making subtle changes for dramatic effect is a pretty good one.

 

Not exactly the behavior of someone who was in on it. If the meeting with Antony and suggestion of tyrannicide took place, it would seem that Antony had dismissed it.

 

It is strange that the "plot" conversation with Trebonius isn't mentioned elsewhere in his other bios or from other sources (Appian, Dio, etc.). This could be attributed to countless reasons ranging from poor sources to dramatic effect to ulterior motives. I shall have to look into it further (especially as you suggest the phillipics).

 

In any case, I do not think Anthony was "in" on it per se. Assuming a Conversation did take place where Trebonius or another conspirator "sounded him quietly and cautiously" then Anthony's failure to tell Caesar could be viewed as 1) Failure to actually understand what was being discussed 2) he didn't think they could pull it off or 3) he didn't bite in hopes the conspitators would do his dirty work for him opening an opportunity for him to take control. Or perhaps he did tell Caeasr something was afoot but Caeasar would have none of it?

 

Edit: I have a passage in Cicero's Second Philippic that supports the mention of the Trebonius conversation in Plutarch:

 

XIV.[34] ...Although, if it be a crime to have wished that Caesar might be put to death, beware, I pray you, O Antonius, of what must be your own case, as it is notorious that you, when at Narbo, formed a plan of the same sort with Caius Trebonius; and it was on account of your participation in that design that, when Caesar was being killed, we saw you called aside by Trebonius But I (see how far I am from any horrible inclination toward,) praise you for having once in your life had a righteous intention; I return you thanks for not having revealed the matter; and I excuse you for not having accomplished your purpose. [35] That exploit required a man.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Publius Nonius Severus

[Primus Pilus]

In any case, I do not think Anthony was "in" on it per se. Assuming a Conversation did take place where Trebonius or another conspirator "sounded him quietly and cautiously" then Anthony's failure to tell Caesar could be viewed as 1) Failure to actually understand what was being discussed 2) he didn't think they could pull it off or 3) he didn't bite in hopes the conspitators would do his dirty work for him opening an opportunity for him to take control. Or perhaps he did tell Caeasr something was afoot but Caeasar would have none of it?

 

Indeed, therein lies the real challenge, considering the many reports, any number of possibilities can be true. While I would certainly not put it past Antony to have considered benefiting by Caesar's death, its terribly difficult to decipher the many conflicting reports. Considering that notions have been put forth that Caesar willingly walked into his own assassination, we are hard pressed to convict Antony. Of course, I do not intend to say with any great conviction that Antony had no knowledge of the deed, but considering the limited material as evidence we are left with a good deal of conjecture (admittedly entertaining conjecture at that).

[Gaius Octavius]

Save for perhaps Cicero, the writers mentioned were not eye witnesses or privy to any conversations. They may be deducing conclusions from mere hearsay. That is not good enough.

[Primus Pilus]

XIV.[34] ...Although, if it be a crime to have wished that Caesar might be put to death, beware, I pray you, O Antonius, of what must be your own case, as it is notorious that you, when at Narbo, formed a plan of the same sort with Caius Trebonius; and it was on account of your participation in that design that, when Caesar was being killed, we saw you called aside by Trebonius But I (see how far I am from any horrible inclination toward,) praise you for having once in your life had a righteous intention; I return you thanks for not having revealed the matter; and I excuse you for not having accomplished your purpose. [35] That exploit required a man.

 

Excellent nicely found! I still am left wondering the motivation though. Cicero clearly wants to break Antony from his popular Caesarian power base so implicating him as a potential conspirator (while praising him for it in the process) definately makes things interesting.

 

Though I do believe the 2nd Philippic was one of those published after Cicero's death?

[Publius Nonius Severus]

Excellent nicely found! I still am left wondering the motivation though. Cicero clearly wants to break Antony from his popular Caesarian power base so implicating him as a potential conspirator (while praising him for it in the process) definately makes things interesting.

 

Though I do believe the 2nd Philippic was one of those published after Cicero's death?

 

 

On the note of Plutarch's witing, there is a JSTOR article (I do not have access to JSTOR (But I am trying!) that talks about how Plutarch adapted his material. From the limited Google preview I can see it specifcially addresses Plutarch's description of the Trebonius/Anthony exchange but you can't see what the analysis is without further access. Here is the link if anyone is interested:

Plutarch's Adaptation of His Source-Material

 

According to Charles Duke Yonge, the second Philipic was not published right away, instead it was sent to Brutus and Cassisus first. It was written by Cicero after Anthony accused Cicero in the Senate of being the architect of the assasination. Cicero was not present for that meeting for fear of his life. I assume he wrote the passage cited in my edited post to turn the tables on Anthony saying there was more to implicate Anthony than Cicero. Cicero also said in the same passage for all (I abridged it):

 

But one thing I am afraid you may not approve of. For if I had really been one of their number, I should have not only got rid of the king, but of the kingly power also out of the republic; and if I had been the author of the piece, as it is said, believe me, I should not have been contented with one act, but should have finished the whole play.

 

I interpret that as saying if Cicero were behind it then Anthony wouldn't still be around to make Philipics against!

 

Sorry, I didn't want to get off-topic...the more I appraise Anthony, the less I like him. Who knows how worse off Rome would have been if he had been able to take over control after the assasination and didn't have to compete with Brutus & Cassius, and then later Octavian. Marcus Antonius, Rex Romae?

[Ingsoc]

I would have to say Anthony betray his homeland, he abandon his Roman wife for a foreigner, and not only that but he also gave to her control Romans lands.

[M. Porcius Cato]

From the limited Google preview I can see it specifcially addresses Plutarch's description of the Trebonius/Anthony exchange but you can't see what the analysis is without further access. Here is the link if anyone is interested:

Plutarch's Adaptation of His Source-Material

 

Here is the relevant section of the article by Pelling:

 

Finally, Ant. 13 repays examination. Antony has just failed in his clumsy attempt to crown Caesar at the Lupercalia. That episode strengthened the conspirators' hand, and they considered approaching possible allies. Some suggested inviting Antony, but Trebonius opposed this: he mentioned an earlier occasion on which he had himself sounded Antony. His remarks again seem based on the Second Philippic (34): (Antony),

quem et Narbone hoc consilium cum C. Trebonio cepisse notissimum est et ob eius consili societatem cum interficeretur Caesar, tum te a Trebonio uidimus seuocari.

In Plutarch, the passage is transformed. Antony now shares a tent with Trebonius as his travel-companion; Trebonius broaches the subject and Plutarch stresses (what was a very easy inference) that Antony neither joined the plot nor revealed it to Caesar. The details give the anecdote conviction and interest, but they are again not very substantial. They are much more likely to come from Plutarch's imagination than from any independent authority.