About Octavian's Statue

[Guest Sky_11]

http://www.uoregon.edu/~arthist/arthist_20...ta_augustus.gif

 

in this picture, there is a winged-child with Octavian, what does it mean ?

[Ursus]

http://www.arkeologi.uu.se/primaporta/Augustus.htm

 

The Child is actually a cupid standing on a Dolphin.

 

Cupid represents Venus, from whom The Julian clan claimed direct descent through Aeneas, the legendary founder of Rome.

 

The Dolphin is one of Apollo's sacred animals. When Marc Antony claimed to be the god Dionysus, Augustus claimed the protection of the rival god Apollo. The doplhin represents Apollo's patronage of Augustus and his defeat of Marc Antony (and Dionysus) at Actium.

[dnewhous]

What were the numbers on both sides of that battle?

[phil25]

Exploring old threads (from before my time) and found this one.

 

The Prima Porta statue (possibly from a villa belonging to Livia (Augustus' wife) is truely fascinating. There is practically no aspect of it that is not redolent with imagery from the cuirass - the return of the Carrhae eagles from Parthia; to the bare feet (a sign of divinity).

 

The whole iconography of Octavian/Augustus is an interesting subject - the British Museum did an exhibition on the theme many years ago - which brought together many examples. I have the catalogue - "The Image of Augustus" still.

 

It would be fascinating to know whether this was a statue made after his death - hence the bare feet - but commissioned by someone close to him, meaning that it should have been a good likeness.

 

There are no statues of the first princeps showing thim as "old" - although I think a togate statue at either Corinth or Epidavros, with the fold drawn over the head in priestly, mode might be thought to have an older air. It was made to go with a pair of Gaius and Lucius.

 

Phil

[Favonius Cornelius]

When Marc Antony claimed to be the god Dionysus

 

He did this? Was it for the Aegyptians?

[phil25]

I'll check, but I seem to recall he paraded the connection in Greece and Asia Minor as well.

 

Phil

[P.Clodius]

I remember reading this too. Think it was HERE

It may have been Plutarch now I think of it

Edited January 20, 2006 by P.Clodius

[Ursus]

When Marc Antony claimed to be the god Dionysus

 

He did this? Was it for the Aegyptians?

 

 

Well, in Egypt, Cleopatra claimed to be Isis, and Antony claimed to be Osiris. The Hellenistic equivalents of these were Demeter (or Aphrodite) and Dionysus, respectively, which both rulers promoted among their Greek subjects.

 

Antony seems to have been very fond of drink and wild parties, something associated with the god Dionysus. His behaviour scandalized more conservative Romans.

 

But most Romans up to that point only claim to have a patron deity, they didn't claim to actually be the deity. In the Hellenistic east claiming to be a reincarnation of a god for political purposes was not at all uncommon, and this is probably what Antony was aiming at. He and Cleopatra wanted to rule the entire east as god-monarchs on earth in the tradition of the old Pharoahs.

 

But there are indications that Antony had gone over the edge and actually believed himself an Olympian on Earth. Augustus certainly promoted whatever evidence there was of this for his own ends in an attempt to slander Antony as a debased and power mad Oriental. And it worked, judging by how many people deserted Antony.

 

 

Again, Augustus chose Apollo as his patron deity (or, if Augustus didn't really believe in Homeric gods, he chose Apollo as his "mascot" or his symbol of his new order). Apollo represents order, tradition, sobriety, restraint - the antithesis of Dionysian excess in which Antony was steeped.

[phil25]

I think we must be a little wary of accepting Augustan propaganda about Antonius too quickly.

 

Antonius was no Caesar, but he was an experienced politician. I doubt he "flipped " by believing he was divine. caesar had acknowledged the Venus connection very openly (viz the temple in his new Forum at the heart of Rome); he had been made divine AFTER death. It is surely more likely that Antonius was exploring paths similar to these, than that he was becoming power mad.

 

It was always widely recognised that the eastern empire had to be ruled differently to the western. Hellenism was what most of the imperial provinces - from Achaia, through Asia to Syria and Egypt, were accustomed to from generations of rule by Alexander's successors - the Ptolemies, Seluicids and Antigonids, etc.

 

Jack Lindsay - an almost forgotten author, but one I recommend for his efforts to enter the mind-set of the Romans - has a lot to say about what Antonius might have been doing and why in his books on Roman Egypt. I STRONGLY recommend reading these. A little dated now in style and perhaps in scholarship (much has happened and been found out since the 1950s/60s) but his approach remains valid IMHO.

 

It is the vocabulary of the east that Antonius was seeking to use - and Dionysius/Bacchus, like Apollo, was a sophisticated concept with many ramifications. the libidinious hedonist is not his only side. Both Apollo and Dionysus had their mystic and mystery sides.

 

As Constantine eventually demonstrated, given the wealth, cultural distinctiveness (Greek), importance for food (Egyptian grain) and threat (Parthia) there was merit in ruling the east from within its own sphere. 300 years earlier, Antonius and Cleopatra VII may have had an aspiration to do the same thing from Alexandria, or - at least - for her to rule the east from there, while another (Octavian maybe) ruled in the west, under Antonius paternal direction (a parallel might be the later Augusti and Caesars, senior and junior, of the late empire). Speculation, I know but within the spirit of Roman thought and imagination.

 

I think one must also be careful of using phrases like "the tradition of the old Pharoahs". I'm not sure we know how the Ptolemies saw that tradition. They seem to have operated within a very Macedonian/Greek world and mind-set - Alexandria.

 

In any case the dynastic pharaohs (say Tuthmosis III or Rameses the Great) did not rule the entire east as god-monarchs. Egypt's empire was more a sphere of infleunce, in a world of great powers - Hittites, Mitanni, Achiawa, Babylon. Much of the writing on ancient Egypt is based on Victorian ideas of empire, religeon and those in turn reflect Roman models. I think Egypt was much more alien, more African maybe. But i strongly doubt it was ever a model for Antonius and Cleopatra except in symbolic terms - its antinquity even then; its aura, its style.

 

Please come back at me, I know I am being controversial here,

 

Phil

[Ursus]

The thing of it is though, I really don't think it matters what we believe. What matters is what the people at the time believed and how they acted upon it. At the end of the day many people found cause to desert Antony, and Augustus' propoganda seems to have been fairly effective to that end among the roman camp. ;-)

 

Even allowing for Augustan exaggeration, I still feel comfortable he won at Actium. Those on these forums berating the fall of the Republic to the despotism of the Empire would probably have twice the cannon fodder if Antony and Cleopatra had won at Actium ... though we can never know for certain.

[phil25]

Ursus:

 

... I really don't think it matters what we believe. What matters is what the people at the time believed and how they acted upon it.

 

That IS important, true - that is (to be crude) "cause and effect", "the result" etc. Much of Octavian's victory was based on his use of propaganda (I am not forgetting Agrippa's contrinution militarily) and that is all about hearts and minds.

 

But we surely have to deepen our understanding of what words, ideas and approaches meant in the 30sBC, and that means getting below the surface of the "facts".

 

After all, the interpretation of events is only that which historians and commentators (then and since) have put on what happened. At one time, I recall, history books were full of how Actium was lost because the Egyptian ships were too large and unmanoeuvrable. (Shades of 1588 and the Spanish Armada!!) But we now know that Actium was lost for far deeper and more subtle reasons, including Agrippa's successful strategy, and indecisicveness in the Antonian high command. We must surely challenge and continue to challenge the conventional wisdoms.

 

I for one don't find the conventional portraits (I mean the interpretations) of the characters of Antonius or Cleopatra remotely convincing in terms of their own times or political practicality. We need (MHO of course) to dig deeper and think harder.

 

If a superficial acceptance of what others have said suits individuals, that's fine by me. But it isn't my approach to history as a living breathing subject.

 

...I still feel comfortable he won at Actium. Those on these forums berating the fall of the Republic to the despotism of the Empire would probably have twice the cannon fodder if Antony and Cleopatra had won at Actium ...

 

Fine. But I don't remotely understand why some personal view of the outcome, or of political rights (democracy) or wrongs (autocracy) has to do with anything. Are we really still at the level of "1066 and All That" in this discussion? Dividing everything into "good" kings and "bad" kings?

 

What on earth have such views got to do with the meaning or practicality of words such "despotism" (or democracy) in the C1stBC? I suspect modern sensibilities would be offended by both.

 

But surely, given the level of knowledge and debate I have seen displayed on this site, we are above responding to history, or of considering a theme, without resorting to arguments based on "well I like Augsustus but I don't like Cleopatra"!! "One was good and the other was a nymphomaniac!!

 

Your "comfort" about who won Actium is relevent only to you (and long may you holf that personal view) - but that is not history, nor being an historian.

 

Phil

[Ursus]

Your "comfort" about who won Actium is relevent only to you (and long may you holf that personal view) - but that is not history, nor being an historian.

 

Nor, really, did I ever assert it otherwise, Phil. My opinions are merely my opinions.

 

 

Perhaps this is merely a problem of miscommunication, but you seem to be making a lot of assumptions here. You are, furthemore, adopting what appears to be a rather lecturing tone in many of your posts, as if you're on some mission to teach a new version of history, or to teach a new historical paradigm, to us kids on these forums. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to find the posturing a bit grating.

[phil25]

My apologies for my tone. Let me know if I don't improve. I'll try to match your standard in future.

 

Phil