of 34 /34
8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bosworth-asinius-pollio-and-augustus 1/34 Asinius Pollio and Augustus Author(s): A. B. Bosworth Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 21, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1972), pp. 441-473 Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435276 . Accessed: 08/04/2011 04:21 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at  . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv . . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:  Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. http://www.jstor.org

BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

Embed Size (px)

Text of BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    1/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    Author(s): A. B. BosworthSource: Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Vol. 21, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1972), pp. 441-473Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435276.

    Accessed: 08/04/2011 04:21

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

    you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

    may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

    Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv..

    Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

    page of such transmission.

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]

    Franz Steiner Verlagis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toHistoria:

    Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4435276?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsvhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4435276?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv
  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    2/34

    ASINIUS POLLIO AND AUGUSTUSIn Tacitus' account of the succession debate, which followed the apotheo-sis of Augustus (September 17, A. D. 14), considerable attention is given toa famous altercation between Tiberius and Asinius Gallus. The historian

    adds a parenthetical comment. Gallus, we are told, had long been hated bythe emperor, tanquamductain matrimoniumVipsania, M. Agrippaefilia, quaequondamTiberiiuxorfuerat,plus quamciviliaagitaretPollionisqueAsiniiferociamretineret.IFerocia is the key word. Asinius Gallus inherited it from his father,Pollio, and had ambitions beyond the station of a private citizen. The provo-cative attitude of the son has had important consequences for the reputationof the father. Asinius Pollio has been absorbed by modern scholarship intothe ranks of the Augustan opposition, and represented as a rancorous andferocious defender of the failing tradition of republican libertas.2This hostili-ty to the regime of Augustus has been developed in a recent and justly cele-brated study of Appian, in which a strongly hostile historiographical biasagainst Caesar's heir is attributed to the lost histories of Asinius Pollio.3 Pol-lio's truculent hostility to the restored republic seems a hypothesis en-trenched and unshakeable, defended as it is by formidable authorities. Nonethe less the evidence is susceptible of a quite different interpretation. The fig-ure of Pollio can be removed from the republican opposition, and the re-moval sheds an interesting light on the history and propaganda of the trium-viral period.

    The verdict upon the ferocia of Asinius Gallus is not unique to Tacitus.It recurs in exactly the same context in Dio's account of the successionI Tac. Ann. I 12,4.2 See, above all, Sir Ronald Syme, The RomanRevolution1939), pp. 482 if. (henceforward RR);Tacitus 1958) 1 136 ff.; 'Livy and Augustus', HSCP 64 (1959) 27 ff. See also E. Kornemann, 'Diehistorische Schriftstellerei des C. Asinius Pollio', Jahrbucherur classische hilologieundPddagogik 2

    Suppl. (1896) 590-600; E. W. Mendell, 'The epic of C. Asinius Pollio', YCS 1 (1928) 201-3, and,more guardedly, J. Andre, La Vie el L'Oeuvred'Asinius Pollio (Paris 1949), pp. 24-5.a E.Gabba, Appianoela .StoriadelleGuerreCivili (Florence 1956), especially pp. 79 ff., and 229 if.There is a modified treatment in his recent commentary on book V of the Emphylia:Appiani Bel/o-rtumCiviliumLiberQuintusa cturadi E. Gabba (Florence 1970), pp. xvii ff. (henceforward Gabba,B. C. V).

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    3/34

    442 A. B. BOSWORTHdebate.4Dio insertsan anticipatorynotice of Gallus'arrestand deathin 30A.D., and, ikeTacitus,headduceshis marriagewith Vipsaniaas the reason orTiberius'hatred.What of the ferociaof Pollio andhis son? Once more Dioechoes Tacitus,but with a significantdifference.AsiniusGallus,he says,al-waysemployedhis father'splainspeaking,even beyondwhatwasin his owninterest.rDio hasnothingabout Gallus'extravagant mbitions,andit seemsthat Tacitusput in a reference o them (plus quamciviliaagitaret) merelytoanticipatehis disgressionabout the three consularsdeclaredcapacesmperiiby Augustus., In any casethe vaultingambition s attributedby TacitustoGallusalone,andit is Pollio'sferocia nd nothing morethat his son is saidtohave inherited.Now in Dio Pollio'sferocia s glossed as zrapp?or/a,he Athe-nian virtue of blunt or eveninsulting speech.Pollo's outspokennesswasfa-mous, if not proverbial.His onslaughtsonCiceroarecarefullyransmittedorus by the elderSeneca,andmordantcommentsarepreserved,criticising hearchaismsof Sallustand the Patavinitasof Livy. Even Caesarwas arraignedfor carelessnessand mendacity n his Commentaries.7 Thesepolemicsextend-ed beyondthe sphereof literarycriticism.Pollio appliedhimselfwith equalfacility to the art of political abuse, and preparedpamphlets attackingL. Munatius Plancus, which were to be published only after the latter'sdeath.8 Activities of this type are certainly examples of ;rapporlia, butzapprataaalone is not sufficient o brandPolio as a malcontent,hostile toAugustus and his regime.It is, however, arguedthatferocian Tacitushas a connotationof politicalrebelliousness,of resistance o theprinceps,9 andthis attributionofferocia oPolio would therefore mplythat Tacitusthought him hostileto the reign-ing family.Now it is quitecertain hat Tacitusdoes use termslike erox andferocia spartof his arsenalof adjectives orthe descriptionof rebelsandmu-tineers.He speaksof thefrrocia of the mutinous German egions in 14 A. D.(Ann. I 45,1), and Civilis' Batavians,he says, swelledup with both superbia

    ' Dio LVII 2,5-7. The immediately preceding proposal of Tiberius to divide the empire intothree parts differs significantly from the studiously indefinite statement in Tacitus to the effect thathe would undertake the administration of whatever portion of the state the senate committedto him (Ann. I 12,1). Dio's tripartite division is far more explicit and unconvincing (cf. E. Hohl,Hermes 68 (1933) 114: Syme, Tacilus II 690). His version of the intervention of AsiniusGallus, however, runs on exactly the same lines as in Tacitus, and it must derive ultimately froma common source.

    6 Dio LVII 2,5 zcapp1aiozeiarota?rpvq Katz rdavryopovXpaC,sAvo;.6 Tac. Ann. I 13,2-3. On this curious passage see Syme, JRS 45 (1955) 22 ff. and TacilusII 694.7 The evidence for Pollio's literary treatises is amassed by Andre, Op.cit. pp. 85-101.8 Plin. NH Ipraef. 31 = Malcovati OratorumRomanorumragmenta ORF2) 174 F 39.9 H. W. Traub, 'Tacitus' Use of Ferocia'TAPA 84 (1953) 250 ff., accepted with reservations

    by Syme, Tacitus I 544 and by Gabba, Appiano . . ., p. 244.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    4/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 443andferocia'0 (Hist. IV 19,1). Politicallyrecalcitrant ndividuals can also bedescribedas ferox, the elder Agrippina" for instance or the consul of 65A. D., M. Vestinus Atticus.12 t is none the less an overstatement hat theconcepts of ferociaand politicalrebelliousnessare coextensive.Tacitususesferocia n a wide varietyof contexts, and very often there can be no sugges-tion of political opposition.'3Indeedthe closestparallel n Tacitusto the de-scriptionof AsiniusGallus spositiveevidencethat a man couldbebothferoxanda friend of the emperor.In 17 A. D. Cn.CalpurniusPiso was appointedlegate of Syria,and Tacitusimmediatelycharacterises im as ingenioiolentumet obsequii gnarum, nsitaferociaapatre Pisone (Ann. II 43,2). Intransigent andrecalcitrantPiso certainly was, as is amply demonstratedby his invectiveagainst the Athenians and his inveterate hostility towards Germanicus."'None the lessPiso had beenemployedfor long years n the service of Augus-tus. In his finalpleaforhis son he wasableto callupon his 45 years n the im-perial serviceanda consulshipsharedwith Tiberiusin 7 B. C.15At his trialTiberius too described him as patris sui legatumatqueamicum(Tac. Ann. III12,1). Of his long careerwe know only that he was proconsul of Africaatsome date uncertainandlegate of Tarraconensisn 9/10 A. D.,"6but that heservedAugustus andwas loyalto him cannotbe calledinto question.In Pi-so's case then inherited ruculencewas no barto his receivingthe high dis-tinction of a consulship sharedwith a memberof the imperial amily, nor tohis governing one of Augustus' majorconsularprovinces. Similarly,whenTacitusspeaksof Pollio'sferocia, here is no reasonto infer that he thoughthim a political malcontent. Elsewhere he speaks of him in fairly neutralterms, emphasisinghisdistinctionasan oratorand asthe grandfather f con-sulars."7He is, however,once mentionedby Tacitus in a context whichquite

    10 The elder Cato used precisely the same terminology to condemn the predatory foreign policyof Rome in 168 B. C. (Gell. VI 3,14 - ORF2 8 F 163).1 Tac. Ann. II 72,1 cf. IV 52,2; VI 25,2. 12 Tac. Ann. XV 68,3.Is Traub himself (p. 257) has difficulty with Agrippa Postumus, whom Tacitus describes as ro-borecorporis tolide erocem(Ann. I 3,4). Here Tacitus is merely emphasising the brutish physicalstrength of the young prince, and there is no hint of political recalcitrance; the following phraseindeed implies the opposite, nullius amen lagiii caomper/um.imilarly Livy, from whom Tacitushere borrows his terminology, describes T. Manlius as praeva/idum i stolide erocemviribussuis.Again it is strength and brutishness that is emphasised; like Agrippa Postumus, the son ofL. Manlius Imperiosus was rough and unschooled, but certainly not politically rebellious - thewhole incident in Livy is an examplc of pie/as.

    14 Tac. Ann. II 55; 69,1; 75,2; 78,1.11 Tac. Ann. III 16,4 'per quinque et quadraginta annorum obsequium, per collegium consu-

    latus quondam divo Augusto parenti tuo probatus et tibi amicus'."I Strabo II 5,33 (130) - Africa. Tac. Ann. III 13,1 - Spain; for the date see G. Alfoldy, FasiHispanienses p. 10-11, who cites CIL II 2703 with Syme's supplement.

    17 Tac. XI 6,2 and 7,2 (coeval of MessallaCorvinus); XIV 40,3 (proavus of Asinius Marcellus);III 75 (avus of Asinius Saloninus). In the latter passage Tacitus ranks Agrippa and Pollio as equal

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    5/34

    444 A. B. BOSWORTHexcludes him asa political opponent of Augustus. In CremutiusCordus'cele-bratedspeechin defenceof freedom of conscience in historicalwriting wefind a list of writers of impeccable oyalty who had praised he memory ofBrutusandCassius.Asinius Pollio is sandwichedbetween Livy and MessallaCorvinus,and Cremutius,who was on trial for maiestas, ould not have somentionedhim if he had any sort of reputationas hostile to the dynasty.Itwould haveprejudicedhis own case.'8Pollio'sferocia annot be used as evidence for his political attitudes.Simi-larly inconclusive is the rest of the evidenceadducedfor his membershipofthe Augustan opposition. It will be best to start0'ar8epovrpo'epovwith alate and dramatic ncident. Augustus' lavishperformancesof the lususTroiaecameto anabrupthaltwhen AsiniusPollio gavea bitterspeech n the senate,protesting that his grandson, Aeserninus,had broken a leg in a recent dis-play."'Here is an incident in which Polio criticisedan institution revivedand beloved by Augustus,andit is worth noticethat his interventioncausedits discontinuance.His opposition was thereforeeffective.20 ow the date ofthe incident should be specified.The victim of Augustus' patriotic displaywasPolio's grandsonandprotege, M. ClaudiusMarcellusAeseminus.2'Ae-serninuswas marked out by the veteranorator as his successorat the bar,andthe elder Senecawitnesseda session at which the elderlyPolio gave in-structionandcorrection o his grandson,stilla boy.22We know further hatAeserninuswaspraetor eregrinusn 19 A. D.,23and, given a normalpassagethrough the cursus,his birth should be placedin 11 B. C. In that case, thedate for his accident s at earliest he lususTroiae f 2 B. C.,24and the bitterin distinction, as does an inscription of Puteoli - Cn. Asinio Pollioniset Agrippae nepolipatronopublice CIL X 1682).

    18 This argument holds whether one takes the speech of Cremutiusas extracted ultimately fromthe ac/a senatus r as a free composition by Tacitus. It is further implied in the context that Pollioen joyed the princeps' avour - 'uterque' (Pollio & Messalla Corvinus) opibusque et honoribus per-viguere' (Ann. IV 34,4).

    1 Suet. Aug. 43,2 = ORF2 174 F 25; cf. Andre op. cit. pp. 24,71. For the lususTroiac ee Schnei-der, RE XIII 2059.

    20 Syme, RR p. 482, remarks in this context that Pollio had acquired for himself a privilegedposition - "too eminent to be muzzled without scandal".

    21 He was the grandson of M. Claudius M. f. M. n. Marcellus Aeserninus, consul of 22 B. C.,and the son of Pollio's daughter Asinia; cf. PIR2 C 928.

    22 Seneca Exc. Conkr. V praef. 2-4. The wording (Marcellus,quamvis uer) implies that Pollio'sgrandson had not yet assumed the togavirils.23 Date supplied by the Fasti Arvalium- CIL 12p. 70 = I. I. XIII 1,298.24 Dio LV 10,6 gives the date. Aeserninus would then have been 9 years old, none too young

    for participation in the lusitsTroiae.Gaius had participated in the display to celebrate the dedica-tion of the Theatre of Marcellus when he was at the tender age of 7 (Dio LIV 26,1 13 B. C.).Andre p. 24 n. 7 missed the performance of 2 B. C. and dated the incident to 13, probably beforcAeserninus' birth; the mistake is repeated by Malcovati ORF2 p. 521, despite Schneider RE XIII

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    6/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 445speechbeforethe senate was deliveredtowards the end of Pollio's life. It isdangerous,however, to generalise rom this incident. It provesthat on occa-sion Augustushimselfcouldbearthe bruntof Porno'sferocia; t does not in-dicateconsistenthostilityto theprincepsnd all his works. Indeed the successof his expostulationsindicatesthat Pollio had considerable nfluence withAugustusandcould affordan occasionaloutburstagainsthim.25There is anotherincident, also from the twilight of Poflio's life, whichsuggests that he enjoyed Augustus' esteem. When Gaius died in 4 A. D.,Polio proceededwitha dinnerpartyunaffectedbythe news. The upshotwasa letter from Augustus, expressing regret noncivilitertantum,sedetiam ami-liariter,quodn tammagno t recentiuctusuohomocarissimrusibiplenoconviviooen-asset.PoWlo etortedby pointingout that he had eschewedall manifestationsof grief at the deathof his son, Herius,and that a friendshould not be ex-pected to displaymore sorrow than a father.26The languageused impliesstronglythat Augustuslooked on him as a friend,enough at leastto be sur-prisedby the failureproperly o observe the deathof hisgrandson.The case of Timagenesof Alexandrias also less significant hanmight ap-pear on the surface.Timageneshadbeen expelled fromAugustus' house forpersistentwitticismsagainstthe imperialfamily,and he took refuge underthe patronageof Polio.27 Augustushadrenouncedhisamicitia,butthe affairwas not particularly erious. In fact the expulsion gave Timagenesa succs descandale,nd Senecasays baldlythat no door otherthan Caesar'swas closedto him.28Moreover Augustus madeno objectionto Timagenes'notoriety orto Porno'spatronage,and of his sentiments on the matter we have only apolitely ironicaljest, warning Pornothat he might himselfbe bitten by hisunpredictableprotege.29The incidenthad no politicalimportance.Augus-tus' withdrawalof amicitiameantonly that a prominentGreek literary igurewas in need of a freshpatron,and Pollio adoptedhim as a client, as he haddone with L. Ateius Philologus afterthe deathof Sallust.30The Timagenesaffair hen shedssomelight on Pollio's activitiesas a patron of the arts, but itis hardlyevidencefor his politicalattitudes.The exchangewith Augustus on2065. Nothing however excludes a date after2 B. C. for the incident. There is no reason to limitthe number of celebrations to the four mentioned by Dio (in 40, 29, 13, and 2 B. C.); according toSuetonius (Aug. 43,2) the lususTroiaewas performedfrequentissime. B. C. should merely be re-garded as a terminus ntequemnon or Aeserninus' accident.

    25 Comparethe rebuffdelivered to Tiberius by Cn. Piso (Tac. Ann. I 74,5). Like Pollio, he hadsufficient auctoritas o check theprincepswithout detriment to his own standing.26 Seneca Exc. Contr.IVpraef. 5.27 Seneca De Ira III 23,4-8; Contr.X 5,21-2 (FGrHist 88 T 2-3).28 Seneca IOc.cit. 23,5-6 'inimicitias gessit cum Caesari;nemo amicitiam eius extimuit'.29 Seneca oc.cit.23,8 0p(OTpObei;.sO Suet. degramm.10,4. Another of the historians in Pollio's clientca seems to have been thesophist, Asinius Pollio of Tralles (Suda s. v. HnXAka = FGrHist 88 T 4).

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    7/34

    446 A. B. BOSWORTHthis occasion, it should benoted, displays he same ntimacyasthe letterafterGaius'death, andis evidence for friendshiprather hanenmity. In this con-text it is perhapsrelevantthat Pollio appeared or the defenceof L. NoniusAsprenas,3' close friendof Augustus,whoseprosecution orpoisoning in 9B.C. threw heprincepsnto an unpleasant dilemma, he necessityto choosebetweenthe conflictingobligationsof law andfriendship.32ollio's appear-ance for the defencedoes not, of course, prove friendship or Augustus, butit servesas useful corroborative vidence. If he hadbeenunremittinglyhos-tile to theprinceps,t is highlyunlikely hat he would havetaken on abrief soclose to his interests.

    There s no moreevidenceorPorio's political iews in hislater ears.33Nothing of value can be adduced from the scantyattestedfragmentsof hisHistories except his well known animusagainstCicero.34Nor does his fa-mous criticismof Livy's Patavinitasmplythat he objectedto the moralandpatrioticoneof theworksof thePatavianistorian.36Quintilian,who citesthe gibe, understands t to refer o Livy'sdiction,althoughhe confesses him-self at a loss to find any provincial elements in his style.36 This does not meanthat we should look for non-literary easons behindPolio's criticism,argu-ing that he must have risen above obvious and trivial criticisms. We have ex-amplesof his attacksupon Saliustwhich areby no means free of triviality;Sallust is reprobated or using transgredinsteadof transfretareo describeacrossingby sea.37Thereis no reason o supposethat his criticismof Livyhadany more cogent basis. Certainlyone cannot invoke Pollio's hypotheticalhostilityto Augustusto elucidatethe remark.The balanceof probability sthathe was snipingat the styleof a rival,not condemninghis historiograph-ical aims.

    31 Quint. Inst. X 1,22. Pollio's opponent was the notorious Cassius Severus (Plin. NH XXXV164), and the speeches of the two advocates were preserved as models for posterity. cf. ORF2 174F 35-8, Andre p. 72. 32 Suet. Aug. 56,3.

    s The Pollio who in 22 B. C. entertained Herod's sons, Alexander and Aristobulus (Jos. AJXV 343), could conceivably have been Asinius Pollio. A more likely identification is with VediusPollio, who had experience in the east and had presumably developed contacts there when he gov-erned Asia, apparently in 31/30 B. C. (cf. Syme JRS 51 (1961) 30 with Addendum). Even if thehost of these princes wasAsinius Pollio, it sheds no light on his political alignment.

    8" Peter, HRR II 67-70, lists six fragments certainly derived from the Histories and one proba-bly (F 6 = Strabo IV 3,3 (193)). Peter's F 8 (Priscian VIII 19 p. 386 K) is merely attributed to "Asi-nius"; there is no indication that it derived from the Histories. A speech is equally probable as thesource. This uncertainty should be stressed in view of the conclusions about the terminal date ofthe Histories drawn from this fragment (cf. Gabba, Appiano . . . p. 243).as cf. Syme, RR pp. 485 if., HSCP 63 (1959) 27 if., Gabba, Appiano ... pp. 84 f. For the oppo-site point of view see P. G. Walsh, Livy pp. 267 ff., Andre pp. 89 ff.

    36 Quint. I 5,56; cf. VIII 1,3 -'et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratioplane Romana videatur, non civitate donata'.

    37 Gell. X 26: cf. Suet. degramm.10X14 for Pollio's criticisms of the archaisms in Sallust.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    8/34

    AsiniusPollio andAugustus 447If, however,we go backto the outbreakof warin 32 B. C.,Pollio'sbehav-iour seems to take on a differentight. He was the sole neutral,we aretold, inthe last contestof all.38Whetheror not Pollio was alone in his neutrality s amoot point; at least no source attests t.39 The importantquestionis the in-terpretationof his withdrawal rom the Actium campaign.Did it, or did itnot springfrom a bitter disillusionmentwith both sidesin the conflict?Nowthe sole source for this incidentis VelleiusPaterculus II 86,3), and his con-text andterminology repayattention.After an encomium on Octavian'scle-mencyafterActium Velleius adds an appendixhighlightingwhat he callsamemorabileictum f Pollio. The orator,he explains,hadremained n Italyaf-

    ter the pactat Brundisium,andhad never associatedhimselfwith Antony'sfaction afterthe deplorableaffairwith Cleopatra.Accordingly,when Octavi-an invited him to join his staff,he retortedthat his services to Antony werethe greater,Antony'sbenefactions o him the morecelebrated; hereforehewould withdraw himself fromthe struggle and become the spoil of the vic-tor. The whole tone of the dictums exculpatory.One is led to infer that be-cause of Antony's benefactionsPollio seemedobliged to take his side in thecrucialstruggle. The ripostewas that, despiteappearances, he debt to An-tony was squared,and therewere no remainingobligationsofpietas. This re-markcan be set in its context. In the prelude to the Actium campaignitseems that Antony was canvassinghis former partisansand issuing pam-phlets accusingof ingratitude hose who failedto take his side. At any ratePoWoproduceda pamphletcontramaledicta ntonii.40The contents are un-known, but it is a reasonableassumptionthat n it Porio rebuttedchargesofingratitudeand madecounter-accusations f his own. A similarproductionis attestedfromPollio's younger contemporaryand forensicrival, M. Vale-rius MessallaCorvinus,who publisheda work contraAntonii itteras ogetherwith what seemto be companionpieces, destatuisAntoniiandpossibly devec-tigaliumAsiae constitutione.41iterarybroadsidesof this typeadmirably uitedthe propagandaof Octavian,who would have welcomed the spectacle of

    S8 Syme, TacilusI 136; cf. RR p. 291.SB Tacitus strongly implies that Cn. Calpurnius Piso played no role in the war of Actium. He ap-parently lived in retirement after the battle of Philippi until Augustus selected him as his colleaguefor 23 B. C. (Tac. Ann. II 43,2). Augustus later claimed that 700 senators accompanied him in theActium campaign (RG 25,2). The triumviral senate contained 300 more senators, and of these re-latively few can have been allowed to depart with Sosius and Ahenobarbus in 32 B. C. despite Oc-

    tavian's (retrospective) promise of free passage (Dio L 2,7). There must have been senators otherthan Pollio who withheld themselves from the conflict.'4 Charisius p. 80,2 K = ORF2 174 F 40.41 Charisius pp. 129,7; 104,18; 146,34 = ORF2 176 F 16-19; cf. Peter HRR II LXXX. Unedi-fying scandal about Cleopatra may have formed part of the contents (Plin. NH XXXIII 50 = F17).

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    9/34

    448 A. B. BOSWORTHAntony's past adherents justifying their refusal to side with him in the finalconflict. Pollo moreover uttered a public statement, disassociating himselffrom his former benefactor. Such statements would have been encouragedby Octavian, and once more Messalla Corvinus supplies a parallel.This for-mer supporter of Brutus and Antony paid a delicate compliment to his finalpatron; at both Philippi and Actium he had chosen the better side.'2 Antonywas implicitly disowned. Unlike Messalla Corvinus, Pollio declared his neu-trality and remained in Italy. He could afford to. Both consularis nd trium-phalishe had no further military laurels to win, while Messalla in 32 B. C. hadboth consulship and triumph ahead of him. He therefore stayed in retire-ment, but he had disavowed and attacked his old patron, which was all Oc-tavian could have wished from him. Po]lio's "neutrality" in 32 certainly doesnot prove his independence. Rather it indicates that he had some share in themanufacture of Octavian's propaganda, and that by 32 he was working forthe eventual victor.

    There is corroborative evidence for the hypothesis. As has been observed,the sole evidence for Pollio's attitude in 32 is Velleius Paterculus. Now Pol-lio makes a surprising number of appearances in Velleius' work, and eachtime the tone is deferential and eulogistic. The memorabile ictumof 32 is anti-cipated and explained. After the fall of Perusia Porno had held the district ofVenetia for Antony, and won over to his side Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus,independent since Philippi and commanding a formidable naval force. Anyfair observer, concludes Velleius, would infer that Pollio contributed to An-tony no less than he received.43Previously Pollio's junction with the forcesof Antony and Lepidus (summer 43 B. C.) had been noted with the commentthat he was unswervingly loyal to the Caesariancause." Velleius further refersto his chequered engagements with Sextus Pompeius in Spain, and withgreat charity talks of a clarissimumbellum.45Last but not least Pollio appearsin Velleius' famous list of novihomineswho had anticipated the position of thegreat Sejanus. From the antique and venerable names of Coruncanius andCorvinus the roll of honour passes to Cato the Censor, to Mummius, Marius,Cicero, and lastly to Asinius Pollio.4Y This panegyric is remarkable. Pollio'sservices to Antony are emphasised, his military failure ignored, and finallyheis represented as the equal of the greatest names in the free state, on aparwithSejanus himself. Velleius' eulogies are not fortuitous, and they amount to far

    42 Plut. Brut. 53,2; cf. Syme, RR p. 482.43 Vell. II 76,3 'quo facto, quisquis aequum se praestiterit, sciat non minus aPollione in Antoni-um quam ab Antonio in Pollionem conlatum esse'.

    44 Veil. II 63,3 'firmus proposito et lulianis partibus fidus, Pompeianis adversus'.'" Vell. 1173,2; Dio XLV 10 reveals embarrassingdetails of defeat and flight.46 Vell. 11 128,3.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    10/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 449more than the iustus sinemendacioandor hat he claims for them.47Those fa-voured by Velleius are predictably the powerful and the successful, thefriends of the ruling dynasty. Of Pollio's generation the men singled out forespecial praise are L. Arruntius,48 C. Sentius Saturninus,49Messalla Corvi-nus,W? nd Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus.5' These have in common the factthat they changed from the faction of Brutus or Antony to that of Octavian,and subsequently enjoyed high honours in the new r6gime.62That Pollio re-ceives equal or even greater esteem from Velleius is indicative that he was nomalcontent, nursing a ferocious independence, but rather an individual hon-oured by the regime and venting hisfrrociain its service.

    Velleius' panegyric is illuminating and instructive, his invective perhapseven more so. Criticism in the imperial period was a risky business, especial-ly in the field of history, and prominent men resented attacks both on theirown dignitasand that of their ancestors.53 We can therefore be assured thatVelleius, if anyone, chose absolutely safe targets for his indignation. It comesas no surprise that M. Lollius is arraigned for venality and treachery." Hehad been a bitter enemy of Tiberius, who had a long and rancorous memo-ry.5 Tiberius' client and historian could only follow suit. Antony and Lepi-dus are dutifully condemned in similar strong terms." There is however apolemic of remarkable consistency and virulence against Pollio's great con-temporary, L. Munatius Plancus, who is reprobated for his immorality andfor his wildly vacillating political loyalties.57 In the sharpest contrast to thischronic traitor Velleius represents Pollio as the constant supporter of theCaesariancause.68There is no apparent reason for this consistent denigrationof Plancus. It has been argued that his memory was prejudiced by the hatredhis granddaughter had aroused by her vendetta against Germanicus.69 Vel-leius, however, was writing in late 29 A. D., his history intended as an inau-gural present for M. Vinicius, consulordinariusn 30. Then the empress Liviahad recently died, and Plancina was probably still protected by her powerfulpatronage. The recent disgrace of her bitter rival, Agrippina, seems to havestrengthened her position. At least she was immune from prosecution until

    ,7 Vell. 11116,5; cf. Syme, RR pp. 488 ff. '" Vell. II 77,3; 85,2; 86,2.'" Veil. II 77,3; 92,1; cf. 105,1; 109-10 for his progeny.'0 Vell. II 36,1; 71,1; 112,1-2. 61 Vell. II 72,3; 76,2; 84,3; cf. 10,2.I' Ahenobarbus, it is true, died a few days after his desertion (Suet. Nero 3,2), but his son,L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, enjoyed Augustus' especial esteem, reaching the consulship in 16B. C. and securing as his bride Augustus' niece, Antonia Maior (PIR2 D 128).as cf. Tac. Ann. IV 33,4. 54 Vell. II 97,1; 102,1.^5 Note his outburst at the funeral of P. Sulpicius Quirinius (Tac. Ann. III 48,2).11II 60,4; 61,4; 63,1; 66,1-5.67 II 63,3; 64,1; 67,34; 74,3; 76,2; 83,1-3; 95,3.as II 63,3; cf. 76,2-3. 69 Syme RR p. 512 n. 1.

    29 Historia XXI/3

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    11/34

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    12/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 451and subsequently he engaged in correspondence with him over the stylisticsins of Sallust.69 However he later wrote memoirs attacking Plancus, to bepublished after the latter's death. The early amicitia was renounced,70and therenunciation coincided with official disapproval. The hostile memoirs couldhave been evoked by Plancus' fall from favour.Pollio then cannot have belonged to the Augustan opposition. Velleius'high praise excludes him as an opponent of the new dispensation. There isanother relevant point. Pollio was a novushomo.The Fasti Triumphales re-cord the praenomen f his father alone; the grandfather's name exceptionallyis omitted.71 His father, it is plausibly conjectured, was the first of the familyto attain Roman citizenship.72Now Pollio had reached the consulship at theearly age of 36, and his own standing was secure enough. However, had heprovoked Augustus or consistently opposed his regime, it is fair to assumethat his sons and descendants would have reverted to obscurity. The jurist,Antistius Labeo, was famous for his bitter outbursts against the princeps,andbecause of his libertasgot no further than the praetorship despite his emin-ence in his chosen field.73' The fasti record no distinctions gained by his pro-geny. In sharp contrast Asinius Gallus, Pollio's only surviving son, reachedthe consulship in 8 B. C. at the earliest possible age of 33.74 Two years laterhe is attested proconsul of Asia.75 Gallus moreover had been coopted into apriesthood at an early age; at the Secular Games of 17 B. C. he was a memberof the senior college of XVviri sacrisfaciundis.76His distinction was consum-mated in his marriage in 12 B. C. to Vipsania, daughter of Agrippa. It is inthe highest degree unlikely that the son of one of Augustus' opponentswould have been so honoured, and there can be little doubt that Pollio, likehis polished contemporary, Messalla Corvinus, was a friend and supporter ofthe princeps.That at any rate is the verdict of Seneca, who classes the Asinii

    9 Gell. X 26,1.70 cf. Andre pp. 83-4, who attributes Pollio's hostility to disgust at Plancus' political oscilla-tions; Syme, RR pp. 512.71 J. I. XIII 1,86 - C. Asinius Cn. f. Pollio.72 PIR2 A 1241; Gardthausen, Augustusund eineZei I 1,110.73 The date of his birth, 76 B. C., is calculated from Tacitus Dial. 34,7 and corroborated by Jer-ome Chron.170 b. cf. Andre p. 10 n. 1.73a Tac. Ann. III 75,2 (according to Pomponius, Dig. I 2,2,47, he refused a suffect consulshipwhen it was offered); for his libertas ee Suet. Aug. 54 with Dio LIV 15,7 & Gell. XIII 12,14 (theverdict of his rival, Ateius Capito). For his eminence as a jurist see PIR2 A 760."I For his birth in 41 B. C. see Serv. Ecl. 4,11, where it is said that Gallus boasted to AsconiusPedianus that he was the child of the Messianic eclogue. This would have been an impossible

    claim had he not been bom about the time of Pollio's consulship.75 SIG8 780 = E&J 312; CIL IlI 7118 = ILS 97.76 CIL VI 32323 11.107; 151. Also attested as XVvir s. f. in 17 B. C. is M. Valerius MessallaMessallinus (cos. 3 B. C.), eldest son of Messalla Corvinus (CIL VI 32323 1. 152). He wascoopted at an equally early age.

    29*

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    13/34

    452 A. B. BOSWORTiiwith the families of Ahenobarbus, Messalla and Cicero, all of whom owedwhat eminence they had in the state to Augustus' clemency.77

    IIIf Pollio in his later years was a friend of Augustus, various questions

    spring to mind. At what stage did he transfer his allegiance from Antony toOctavian, and how did he gain his modern reputation for republicanism?The second is perhaps the easier question to tackle. Pollio's claim to be a re-publican, apart from the passage of Tacitus already discussed, rests squarelyupon his three letters to Cicero, written in the spring and early summer of43 B. C.78Here Pollio does profess devotion to the free state, and he declaresthat he has no inclination to survive it.7J We should not, however, lose sightof the fact that these letters are the product of a particularpolitical crisis, andthey should be examined against the rest of the Ciceronian correspondenceof this period, in particularthe letters of Plancus. Nor should it be forgottenthat these letters are addressed to Cicero, the most vigorous and vocal defen-der of the republic. In such a context expressions of patriotism and loyalty tothe free state should be treated with extreme scepticism.Pofflio'sthree letters fall between March 16 and June 8 of 43 B. C., a periodbeginning a month before Antony's defeats at Forum Gallorum and Mutina,and ending soon after the junction of the forces of Antony and Lepidus inGallia Narbonensis. During that period Pollio was governor of Hispania Ul-terior, commanding the army of three legions which he had used againstSextus Pompeius. The other Caesarian commanders in the west were Lepi-dus in Hispania Citerior and Narbonensis, and Plancus in Gallia Comata. Inthe spring and summer of 43 B. C. the crucial question was whether theywould unite with the armies of the consuls and Decimus Brutus or join withAntony to prevent the dissolution of the Caesarian faction, and it is Pollio'spolitical attitude in this crisis that his letters purport to explain but in fact ob-scure. But before examining Pollio's letters in detail it will be useful to exam-ine some other contemporary views of his position so as to set his ownclaims in perspective.

    77 Seneca de clem.I 10,1; cf. Syme, RR p. 512 'Pollio, as well as Messalla, will be rcckonedamong the profiteers of the Revolution'.

    78 The fullest exposition is E. Kornemann, Jabrbucherur classiscAb hilologieundPadagogik22Suppl. (1896) 590 ff; cf. Syme RR p. 180, Andre p. 19. For a more sceptical, if eccentric, view seeJ. Carcopino, Cicero;TheSecretsof bis Correspondence,p. 514 ff.

    [email protected] d Fam. X 31,3 'ita si id agitur ut rursus in potestate oninia unius sint, quicumque is est, ei meprofiteor inimicum, nec periculum est ullum quod pro libertate aut refugiam aut deprecer'. adFamn.X 33,5 'nam neque deesse nequc superesse rei publicae volo'.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    14/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 453The most strikingfeature s perhaps he silence of the sourcesaboutPol-lio's activities in 43. Decimus Brutus is the only correspondentof Cicerowho mentionshim, and what he saysis despiteits brevity disquieting.Thefirst and crucialreferencecomes in a letter datedApril 29, shortlyafterthedeath of Pansa.80 rutusasksCicero o confirm he waveringloyaltyof Lepi-dus, thathomo entosissimus,ndpreventa union with Antony. He continues:namde PollioneAsinio puto teperspicerequidfacturus it. multaeet bonae tfirmaesunt legionesLepidi et Asini. The explanatory force of namshould be stressed.Brutusbegs Ciceroto intercedewith Lepidus,"foras regardsPolio I thinkthat you see what he intendsto do". The sentenceexplainswhy Lepidus'ad-

    herenceto the stateis so vital. Pollio is not expectedto desertthe Caesariancause,and, if his legions areaugmentedby those of Lepidus,Brutuswill bein desperate traits.That is the driftof the next sentence;"Lepidus andAsi-nius have many excellentbattle-trained8legions". Brutus then renews hisplea for pressure o be put on Lepidus,and he asksthat Plancusbe exhortedalso - now that Antony is routed, he hopes that Plancus will not fail thestate.There is no hintthatCiceroshouldapproachPolio, and the tone of theletter is clearlypessimisticabout his loyalty.82But Brutus, it seems,was notthe only pessimist. When in February43 negotiationswith Antony brokedown anda tumultus as declared n Italy, LepidusandPlancuswereinvitedto join the consuls in the exterminationof Antony.83Pollio was not men-tionedin the senatusonsultum,ndlaterhe wasto complainbitterlyabout the

    "?Cic. ad Fam. XI 9, written at Regium during the pursuit of Antony."I The sense of firmac ere must be "reliable in battle" ratherthan "loyal to the state". Plancuslater in the year complains of the weakness of his army, one veteran legion to eight of recruits; 'itauniversus exercitus numero amplissimus est, firmitate exiguus' (ad Fam. X 24,3). Firmitas in thiscontext means battle-effectiveness. Similarly, when Polio says 'tris legiones firmas habeo' (adFam. X 32,4), he means merely that they areveterans; as he goes on to explain, their loyalty to thestate could not be depended upon.

    82 So Watson, Cicero: SelectedLetters, p. 589; Carcopino, op. cit. p. 512. There is another inter-pretation of this passage, dating back to Manutius (accepted by Tyrell & Purser, CorrespondencefCicero VI 124). Teperspicere s referred to Cicero's friendship (?) with Pollio; Brutus' meaning isthen interpreted - "I ask you to exhort Lepidus; I do not ask you to do the same with Pollio, forhe is a friend of yours, and you have better knowledge of his actions". Brutus' expression in thatcase is very elliptical and the transition to the troops of Lepidus and Pollio quite inexplicable. Mo-reover it is highly uncertain whether Pollio and Cicero could at any stage have been regarded as in-timate friends. The references to Pollio in Cicero's correspondence are few and show no greatwarmth (ad Fam. I 6,1; Att. XII 38,2; 39,1); Pollio's own professions of friendship are a littlcmuted (ad Fam. X 31,6), and in view of his later vendetta against Cicero's memory they shouldbe treated with some scepticism. It should be noted also that Brutus asks Cicero to intercedewith Plancus (ad Fam. XI 9,2), and the friendship of Plancus and Cicero is lavishly proclaimedby both correspondents. That Brutus had no faith in Pollio is clear from the context andthe other evidence coheres.

    " Dio XLVI 29,5-6; cf. Cic. Phil. VIII, 1-2.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    15/34

    454 A. B. BOSWORTromission.84 In Further Spain there were three veteran legions, and theireffective weight would have been at least as great as Plancus' forces.85 Thefact that they were not called upon is eloquent testimony that their comman-der was not expected to side with the army of the free state. There is evenmore decisive evidence in the letters of Plancus. The commander of GalliaComata showed understandable reluctance throughout May and June 43 toengage Antony without reinforcements, and we find him promising successshould he be joined by the legions of Octavian or the army from Africa.85There is complete and significant silence about Polio and the Spanish le-gions, and it must be that Plancus had from the outset eliminated him as apotential ally. That is not surprising. Pollio owed his present position to thepatronage of Caesar,and as a novushomohe could expect nothing but eclipse ifCicero won his campaign and eradicated the Caesarianparty. On the otherhand Plancus was better entrenched, designated for the consulship in 42B. C.,87 and, whichever side eventually won, he could by timely adherenceextort his prize, a triumph for his operations against the Raeti. PoWlio ad lessscope for manoeuvre; his fortunes clearly rested with Antony.After these preliminaries we may turn to what Pollio in fact says. The firstletter (March 16) strikes a note of self-justification, apparently in reply to anearlier letter of Cicero, now lost, which must have expressed surprise at theabsence of news from Spain and requested a statement of Pollio's attitude tothe war.88Poflio explains his silence as due to a breakdown of communica-tions; his letter carriers had been intercepted by brigands or by Lepidus'agents (ad Famn.X 31,1). Now however the sailing seasons has begun, andhe declares his intention of keeping up a regular correspondence with Cicero(31,1). After an oblique reference to some villain unknown, whose overtureshe is determined to resist,89 the letter proceeds to a statement of Polro's po-litical standpoint; naturaautemet studiatrabuntmeadpacis etlibertatiscupidita-tem (31,2). Desire forpax and libertasmust have sounded incongruous in the

    84 ad Fam. X 33,1 'atque utinam eodem s. c. quo Plancum et Lepidum in Italiam arcessistis mequoque iussissetis venire'.

    I' For Pollio's three legions see ad Fam. X 32,4. Plancus had three legions of veterans and oneof recruits (ad Fam. X 24,3); earlier he had claimed five legions (X 8,6).es ad Fam. X 21,6; 23,6; 24,8.87 Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrHist 90 F 130, XXII 77; Dio XLIII 51,2; cf. ad Fam. X 1,1; 3,3;

    6,3; 10,2. 88 adFamr.X31,1 &6.'l The older hypothesis that Antony is here referred to has been discarded, and the individualidentified as Pollio's quaestor, L. Cornelius Balbus (cf. Tyrell & Purser VI 69). However, whenPollio has complaints to make about Balbus, he does not hesitate to denounce him by name (adFam. X 32,1-3). Here the studiously indefinite expression suggests that Pollio is replying to ex-hortations from Cicero and maybe reproducing his terminology. Certainly Antony had been incommunication with Pollio (ad Fam. X 32,4; XI 11,1), and it was his overtures that Cicerowouldbe most eager for Pollio to reject.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    16/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 455mouth of a prominent Caesarian, and so we find Pollio explaining himself.He is no war-monger. He was reluctant to take sides in the civil war of 49B. C., but he was driven into Caesar'scamp by his influential enemies.90 Cae-sar's subsequent generosity made claims upon his fidesandpietas, and forcedhim to undertake certain unpopular jobs, which none the less he showedwere performed with reluctance. The odium he thereby incurred gave himpersonal experience how wretched life is under a despotism. He therefore de-clares his undying opposition to anyone attempting to establish a similardominatio.Pollio, then, declares himself a reluctant Caesarian with personalexperience of the bitterness of monarchical rule. There is, he implies, no-thing inconsistent in his advocacy of pax and libertas.It should be added thatPollio does not in this letter argue that Antony is aiming at dominatio.Hemerely states his general opposition to despotism, and gives no hint of his as-sessment of the current political crisis.The next objection Pollio had to meet was why he had done nothing so farin the crisis. He admits that Pansa had recently sent him a letter urging himto submit his army to the consular authority, but Lepidus, he claims, is an in-surmountable obstacle, blocking the coast road to Italy and publicly declar-ing sympathy with Antony. PoWlonow implies that he has no intention ofjoining the Antonian camp. He states that he will only surrender his prov-ince to an accredited agent of the senate, and as a guarantee he adduces hisrefusal to surrender the 30th legion to Antony and Lepidus.91 This leads upto a recapitulation of Pollo's political standpoint: qua re eumme existima esse,quiprimumpacis cupidissimusim (omnis enimcivisplane studeo sse salvos), deindequiet me et rempublicam vindicare n libertatem aratus sim (31,5). The termino-logy here deserves examination, for it embodies two antithetical slogans cur-rent in the ideological warfare of 43 B. C. Peace and the salvation of Romancitizens was the theme song of the advocates of conciliation with Antony.Most strikingly it recurs in Lepidus' final dispatch to the senate and Roman

    " X 31,3 'cum vero non liceret mihi nullius partis esse, quia utrubique magnos inimicos habc-bam, ea castra fugi in quibus plane tutum me ab insidiis inimici sciebam non futurum'. This inimi-cus was probably Cato, whom Pollio had prosecuted in 54 B. C. ORF2 174 F 15-18 (esp. Sen.Conkr.VII 4,7), Andre p. 68.91 There is no warrantfor Carcopino's assertion (op.cit. p. 515 n. 1) that Pollio gave in and sur-rendered the 30th legion. The only evidence is Appian's statement that Pollio had two legions inSpain (B. C. III 46,190). This figure might be a confusion with the two legions Pollio eventuallybrought to Antony (App. III 97,399); so Andre p. 17 n. 11 and P. A. Brunt, CR NS 11 (1961) 100n. 3. But Appian's legionary numbers seem underestimates. Plancus, for instance, is given three le-gions instead of the four he in fact possessed (App. III 46,190 97,399; cf. ad Fam. X 24,3). The fig-ure for Lepidus' legions, moreover, varies bctween four (III 46,190) and seven (III 84,348). Fordiscussion and attempts to reconcile these discrepancies, see H. Botermann, Die Soldatenund dieromischePolilik in der Zeit vonCaesarsTod bis zur Begrtindungeszweiten Triumvirats:Zetemata 46(Munich 1968), pp. 199-201.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    17/34

    456 A. B. BOSWORTHpeople. There Lepidusclaimsthat he was forcedby his armyto unitewithAntony:- exercituscunctus . . me tantaemultitudinisciviumRomanorum alutisatqueincolumitatiscausamsuscipere,ut vere dicam, coegitY2n Februaryof thesame year Q. Fufius Calenushad urged compromisewith Antony for thesakeof securing peaceand the safetyof Romancitizens.93Cicero'sreactionto such propagandawas predictablyviolent, his reply being a categoricalstatement hatpeacewith Antony andthe libertyof the Romanpeopleweremutually exclusive.94PoJlio, hen, repeats he propagandaof reconciliation,andat this pointhispolicy seems to have become identicalto that of Lepidusand Plancus.OnMarch20 the senate receiveda communication rom the governors of thetwo Gauls, recommendingpeacewith Antony. Ciceroreplied n two letters,couched in scathingtermsto Lepidusandin a more reasonableone to Plan-CUS,95ut the tenorof the letters s the same- peace s only possiblewiththecomplete annihilationof the Antonian forces. Pollio's advocacy of peaceputs him in the samecamp,andindeedthe adoption of a programmeof re-conciliationwas a logical move for all Caesarianrmycommanders.The de-clarationof war in Februaryhad put them all in an embarrassing osition.To help the consuls againstAntony was to destroythe Caesarianaction,while to join forces with him was an act of war againstthe state.A com-promisewasthe only safewayout.Pollio however declareshimselffor libertasas weHl s peace,the exactop-posite of Cicero'srepeatedprotestations.But the phrase,vindicaren liberta-tem, is notoriously flexiblein meaning. Any party leader,especiallywhensuccessful,could invoke it againsthis enemies.Caesar, s is well known,re-presented hecrossingof the Rubiconas an act to freethe state from the do-minationof a faction, and the catchwordwasgenerouslyusedbyhisheir.96Therewas nothing to preventthe supportersof conciliationusing the con-cept of libertaso justifytheir standpoint,and Lepidusdoes seemto repre-sent his junctionwith Antony as a move towardslibertas s well as peace.97Antony was not the only potentialdespot, and joininghim could be repre-sented as a movement against Cicero, the Romulus from Arpinum.98Pollio in this letter does not state that Antony is a threat to libertas.

    92 adFam. X 35,1 (30 May). "3 Cic. Phil. VIII 4,13.9" Cic. Pbil. XIII 1,1 'a principio huius belli, p. c., quod cum impiis civibus suscepimus, timui

    ne condicio insidiosa pacis libertatis reciperandaestudia restingueret'.96 ad Fam. X 27 (Lepidus); X 6 (Plancus).9 Caes. BC I 22,5; Res Gestac1,1; Mattingly, Coinsof theRomanEmpirein the BritishMuseum

    112, nr. 691 = E&J 18. For a list of vacuous and emotive appeals to libertassee Ch.Wirszubski,Liberiasasa PoliticalIdea at Rome,pp. 1034.

    97 ad Fam.X 35,1.Il Velleius II 72,2 implies that Brutus and Cassiushad intended to establish adominatio.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    18/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 457The use of the concept is not inconsistent with the terminology ofreconciliation, and throughout Pollio commits himself to no hostile actionagainst Antony.The letter ends with a complaint. Polio has been given no advice from Ci-cero whether or not to lead his army into Italy. He therefore has decided onhis own initiative to set out from his province. A covering letter has beensent to Pansa, explaining his plans and a copy enclosed for Cicero (31,6). Un-fortunately this copy has not survived. The motives for Poflio's alleged in-tention to move are therefore unknown. It should be remarked that this re-solve to leave Further Spain is inconsistent with the previous statement thatLepidus was blocking the route to Italy.99We must therefore assume eitherthat Pollio intended to defy Lepidus (of which he gives no hint),'?? or thatPollio's intention was not to join the consular army besieging Mutina. It is apuzzling end to a peculiarly evasive letter.Pollio's next communication is undated, but it seems to have beensent immediately after receipt of the news of the relief of Mutina, whichreached Further Spain after an interval of forty days.10'Here Pollio lamentsthat he was not summoned to the defense of Italy. With Plancus' helphe would have shaken Lepidus out of his vacillation and prevented thedevastation of Italy (ad Fam. X 33,2). How he thought that laudable aimcould have been achieved is uncertain; perhaps he envisaged the Caesariancommanders working in common to impose a reconciliation on both sides.The question however remains purely academic, for Pollio in spite of his ear-lier declaration did not take the field. Lepidus, he explains, was still poten-tially hostile, and, even if he had braved his opposition, there would havebeen further risks. Had he made an appearance after the battle, his actionsmight have been subjected to hostile interpretations because of his friend-ship with Antony (an important testimony to his Caesarian loyalties l). What-ever Pollio's intentions had been on March 16, it is evident that he had notled his forces from Spain.There are worse inconsistencies to come. Pollio claims that he had sent offenvoys in April from Cadiz, to ask for instructions, and these envoys hadtaken ship on the very day that battle was joined; nulla enimpost hiememuitante eam diem navigatio 33,3). This contradicts Pollio's statement in his letterof March 16 that the sea was already navigable,'02 and indeed he had sent off

    @ Carcopino (op. cit p. 515) goes so faras to suggest that Pollio's letters were selectively editedto emphasise the contradictions.00 Lepidus' attitude had not changed since March; cf. ad Fam. X 33,2.101adFam. X 33,5 'maxime tamen doleo adeo longo et infesto itinere ad me veniri, ut die quad-ragesimo post aut ultra etiam quam facta sunt omnia nuntientur'.

    102 ad Fam. X 31,1 'nunc vero nanctus occasionem, postea quam navigari coeptum est, cupidis-sime et quam creberrimepotero scribam ad te'.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    19/34

    458 A. B. BOSWORTHcommunications to both Pansa and Cicero. Now he claims that therewas no navigation until the next month. That is not all. Pollio saysthat he had disposed his troops in winter quarters in Lusitania with nosuspicions of the future civil conflict (33,3). In March, however, headmitted having received a letter from Pansa, urging him to place hisarmy at the disposal of the state (31,4), and it is incongruous to say the leastto find Poflio in April disclaiming any earlier suspicions of the impendingcivil war. Clearly he is justifying his failure to move during the Mutinacampaign, and equally clearly he is writing without reference to his earlierletter. His excuses therefore are not only lame but also demonstrablyinconsistent.There is a further peculiarity in the letter. Pofllo seems resentful of thespeed with which the campaign of Mutina reached its climax. Both partieswere so eager to force an issue that it seemed that their worst fear was thatthe state might escape damage (33,3). This haste had precluded his takingany part in the hostilities. Despite his chagrin at the speed of the campaignPollio is far more bellicose in this letter than he had been on March 16. Hehas learned of the deaths of the two consuls, of Antony's ignominious flightfrom Mutina, of his intention to incite the slaves and subject nations of theempire, should he fail to secure an accommodation with Lepidus. Pollio's re-action to the news is decisive; this time there is no hesitation, no request foradvice and authorisation. All holders of imperiummust act on their own ini-tiative to save the state from conflagration.103Pollio announces himselfabout to depart, and promises to expound his decision in his next letter. Thepresent missive ends with an expression of patriotism'04 and a complaintabout the tardiness of the news.

    This outburst of activity comes explicitly after the arrival of the news ofMutina, a severe defeat for Antony, which had driven him temporarily todesperate measures.105At this juncture his position must have appearedinse-cure in the extreme, certainly shaky enough for PolWioo be justified in mak-ing belligerent noises from Spain. The forces of the repubLicwere in a win-ning position, or at least must have seemed so from Further Spain, and Pol-lio could hardly affordto withhold himself from the final phase of the strug-gle. Plancus' activities in Gaul seem to have run parallel. Up to April his let-

    103 ad Fam. X 33,5 'quae si vera sunt, nemini nostrum cessandum est nec exspectandum quiddecernat senatus; res enim cogit huic tanto incendio succurrere omnis qui aut imperium aut no-men populi Romani salvum volunt esse'.1I4 ad Fam. X 33,5 'nam neque desse neque superesse rei p. volo'. Plancus makes a similarprofession of devotion in a letter written at roughly the same time (X 21,6 - 15 May; compareX 8,7).

    105 For the rumours mentioned by Pollio (X 33,4) that Antony was recruiting slaves, see thestatement of Decimus Brutus (ad Fam. XI 13,2).

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    20/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 459ters are full of caution. Despite frequent expressions of loyalty108his activi-ties are directed only to consolidating his province and raising troops. Hemakes no effort to move from his province and is adamant that the worst ofcrimes in this situation is rash action.'07 On April 26 Plancus crossed theRh6oneand began to march south. A day or two later news arrived of the re-lief of Mutina.108 t is clear that what caused Plancus' tardy departure was thenews of Antony's first defeat at Forum Gallorum (April 15). This was suffi-cient to induce him to take his forces closer to the area of hostilities, and thenews of the relief of Mutina (April 21) stimulated him to send an embassy toLepidus to arrange common action (ad Farn. X 11,3). Even Lepidus, itseemed, was momentarily stirred to a decision to bar Antony from his pro-vince.109In the weeks following MutinaAntony's position was at its weakest,and it was clearly in the interests of the Caesarian governor to side, ostensi-bly at least, with the armies of the state. Polio least of all could afford to backthe wrong side, hence his chagrin at the long delay of the news of Antony'sdefeats.We move to Pollio's final letter, dated June 8. A good half of it is devotedto a lurid exposition of the delicts of his quaestor, L. Cornelius Balbus, whohad defected to King Bogud of Mauretania."10Subsequently he goes on toask once more for instructions - nunc,quod raestat, quid me velitisfacereconsti-tuere X 32,4). There follows a description of his efforts to keep his three le-gions intact and uncorrupted by the canvassing of Antony and Lepidus.These troops, he says, should be regarded as conserved for the state, and aguarantee that he would have done whatever he was commanded. We areback to Polio's complaints of March 16 that no direction has been given bythe senate. There is no reference to his previous proud resolution to take thefield. On the contrary, Pollo says outright that he has never crossed theboundaries of his province but rather limited his activities to restrainingdesertion (32,4). The tone of the letter is quite different from the somewhatbellicose expressions of a fortnight before. The forthright statement that allholders of imperium hould act to save the state has been replaced by a tamerequest for further orders. Something has happened, and clearly the decisiveevent is the union of the forces of Lepidus and Antony, which took place on

    106 ad Fam. X 4,3; 7,2; 8,7.107 See, above all, his dispatch to the senate (X 8,1-6). This was sent to Rome towards the end

    of March, for Cicero's reply reveals that it arrived in the city on the morning of April 8 (X 12,2).Despite all his claims that he was fully preparedto take the field (X 8,6; 7,2) Plancus remained im-mobile for a month.

    108 X 9,3 - crossing of the Rhonc; X 11,2 - arrival of the news of the relief ofNtutina."09 X 15,1-2. Lepidus' favourablc response to the emissaries came some time before May 12.110 X 32,1-3.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    21/34

    460 A. B. BOSWORTHMay 29.111 The balance of power had swung once more, in Antony's favour,and Polro's response was to adopt a neutral posture, waiting for events tomove decisively again. Plancus too planned a strategic withdrawal from Nar-bonensis on the evening after the junction of the two armies. By June 4 hewas back across the river Isara with his bridges prudently broken behindhim."2 Once in his province he resisted overtures from Antony,"3 but wise-ly refrained from any hostile action, even after the arrival of Decimus Bru-tus. His last recorded words to Cicero are a request for further reinforce-ments."4 Plancus, like Pollio, was waiting for some decisive turn of eventsbefore committing himself irrevocably.There is another parallel with Plancus. Pollio ends with yet another com-plaint. His efforts, he hopes, will bear fruit if the state is saved, but if the stateand the majority of the senate had known him sufficiently, greater benefitswould have accrued through him.,'1 On the surface this is a complaint oflack of recognition, comparable with the lament that he had not been sum-moned by senatus onsultumo the defence of Italy (X 33,1). There might how-ever be underlying resentment that no concrete honours had been votedhim. Plancus' letters contain persistent pleas to Cicero to defend his digni-tas.116These pleas were far from superfluous. Plancus had a substantial fac-tion in the senate hostile to him, and in April P. Servilius Vatia Isauricuswent out of his way to obstruct the passage of a vote of honours for him."7Honours were coveted, and after the battle of Mutina a high distinctioncould be achieved. Both the consuls had succumbed and the suffect consul-ship was open to ambition. The young Octavian's agitation is too wellknown to need illustration here,"18but it should be stressed that he was notthe only contender. Even Plancus, who was consul designate for 42 B. C.,felt at one stage so uncertain of his future that he requested to be appointedHirtius' successor."9 Porno equally might have expected an accelerated con-sulship in return for his services and his army, and the senate's neglect was amatter for bitterness.After the letter of June 8 nothing more is heard from Pollio. His corres-pondence with Cicero breaks off with professions of fidelity and determina-tion to remain in his province. In fact Porno did stay in Further Spain for

    "I For the date see X 23,2. Lepidus' final dispatch to the senate (X 35) is dated May 30.112 X 23,1-3. 113 X 23,5. ll X 24,8."11 X 32,5 'sed res publica si me satis novisset et maior pars senatus, maiores cx me fructus tulis-

    set'. 11" X 7,2; 11,1; 17,3; 21a,7.117 Cic. adFam. X 12,34; ad M. Brutum112,3.118 For his insulsaeffilagitatio lancus is an eloquent witness - X 24,6; cf. Syme, RR pp.182f.119 X 21a,7 'tantum te rogo, in Hirti locum me subdas ct ad tuum amorem et ad meam obser-

    vantiam'.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    22/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 461two months more, but in August he crossed the frontier at last and moved toGaul with two legions. There he joined Antony and persuaded Plancus toadd his forces to the winning side. The exact chronology is unknown, thanksto the termination of Cicero's correspondence, but the fullest source, Ap-pian, places Pollio's intervention after Octavian's march on Rome and thepassing of the Lex Pedia.120According to Appian, Octavian had previouslywritten to both Pollio and Plancus, recommending them to work for the uni-ty of the Caesarian cause. This incident is suspect, connected as it is with thehighly tendentious death-bed advice of Pansa, purportedly warning Octa-vian against the machinations of the senate and recommending allCaesariansto form a unified front.'21 But whether or not Octavian sent out preliminaryfeelers to the Caesariangenerals is immaterial. The march on Rome was am-ple proof that the coalition against Antony had collapsed. Further hesitationwas unnecessary and undesirable. Polio joined Antony in the autumn, andreinforced his allegiance by inducing Plancus, still apparently his friend,122odesert the dying cause of the republic. His adherence was late but welcome,and the proper reward came in due course. In November 43 the dynasts metnear Mutina and composed their differences. In the course of the settlementthe city magistracies were designated five years ahead,'23and one of the be-neficiaries was Pollio, designated consulordinariusor 40 B. C. Similarly Plan-cus not only had his consulship confirmed for 42, but heralded it with the ce-lebration of a triumph on December 29, 43.124 In both cases a timely adher-ence to the winning side was amply rewarded.Pollio's activities in 43 B. C. are best interpreted as political opportunism.He was a novushomo,and depended on patronage for further advancement. Itwas therefore essential to back the right side. Accordingly Pollio only madea decisive move when it became clear how the crisis would resolve itself. Hisearlier enthusiasm to take the field after the relief of Mutina was premature,quickly forgotten when the forces of Antony and Lepidus coalesced. The ex-pressions of patriotism in the letters to Cicero must be understood againstthis background. Pollio's utterances of support forpax and libertaswere deli-berately evasive, so as neither to commit himself to positive action nor to in-

    120 App. BC III 97; Liv. Per. CXX; Vell. II 63,3 apparently places the union with Antony sometime previously, but his account is brief and highly tendentious. In particularthere is no referenceto Octavian's march on Rome, and his first consulship is mendaciously dated afler the agreementwith Antony and Lepidus (II 65,2).121 App. III 81, 330 mentions approaches to Plancus and Pollio. This passage follows on fromIII 80, 326, a reference taking up the deathbed speech of Pansa (III 75-6). On the dubious authen-ticity and propagandaimplications of this speech see F. Blumenthal, 'Die Autobiographic des Au-gustus', Viener Sltdien 35 (1913) 269 f., Gabba, Appiano . . . pp. 171 f.122 cf. ad Fam. X 33,2. 123 App. IV 2,7.124 Fasti Capitolini and Barberini, I. I. XIII 1,86 f. & 567; cf. ILS 886 = E &J 187.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    23/34

    462 A. B. BOSWORTHcur accusations of treason. Like Plancus, he was forced to play a waitinggame, and certainly he should not be censured either for his preliminarywavering or for his ultimate adherence to the winning side. But neither dohis professions of patriotism to Cicero entitle him to be credited with repub-lican sentiments.

    IIIIn 43 B. C. Pollio chose the side which suited his political interests. There

    was on his part no hankering after the lost free state and certainly nodesire for martyrdom. His benefactor was Antony, and accordingly wefind him operating in Cisalpine Gaul in command of Antonian forces bothduring and after the Perusine war.126None the less, his previous activityshows clearly that he might have transferred his allegiance to Octavian atany time, had it suited his purposes. Now I argued earlier that Pollio hadbecome alienated from Antony by the time of the Actium campaign, andthat his subsequent career makes more sense if he is regarded as a friendof the first princeps.We have to do with a change of sides, and the crucialproblem is to specify the date at which Pollio moved from one side to theother.We can establish a terminuspost quemn the pact of Brundisium, concludedin September 40 B. C.126 Before that Pollio was actively engaged in hostili-ties and invective against Octavian,127and a few months before Brundisiumhe had annexed the republican admiral, Ahenobarbus, for Antony's cause.128Afterwards his activities are more obscure. The main source is Velleius, whoclaims that after Brundisium Porio remained in Italy, and took no part in thedeplorable escapades in the east.'29This information is defective, for, as iswell known, Pollio withdrew to the Balkans shortly after the pact and cam-paigned successfully against an Illyrian tribe, the Parthini, eventually cele-brating a triumph over them.'30 Now Velleius omits all reference to the cam-paign and triumph, which is surprising, given his predilection for Pollo.

    125 His standing is uncertain; it is conjectured that he was either a legate or a promagistrate(Broughton, MRR II 372-3; 377-8). That he belonged to a board of IIIviri agrisdividundiss a hy-pothesis resting on the dubious authority of the Vergilian commentators, most probably a wilddeduction from the subject matter of the Eclogues; cf. H. Bennett, AJP 51 (1930) 334 ff.,Broughton, MRR II 377.

    126 For the date see Kromayer, Hermes29 (1894) 556 ff., Syme, CQ 31 (1937) 41 n. 1.127 App. V 20,80; 33,130; 50,212; Vell. II 76,2. For Octavian's obscene pamphlets and Pollio'spointed rejoinder, see Macrob. II 4,21. This dictummust be datcd to the Perusine campaign; cf.Bennett, AJP 51 (1930) 329, Syme, RR p. 211, Gabba, Appiano . . ., p. 237.

    128 Vell. II 76,2; App. V 50,212. 129 Vell. II 86,3.ISODio XLVIII 41,2; Fasti Capitolini & Barberini, I. I. XIII 1,86 f., 342, 568.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    24/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 463Further, his treatment of PoWlo'striumviral activities seems at least partiallyaimed at exculpating him from Antony's charges of ingratitude; the winningof Ahenobarbus is explicitly presented as Pollio's greatest service to Antony,and Velleius in this passage anticipates the famous dictumwf 32 B. C.131 Itcould be that PoWlo's Balkan campaigns were inconsistent with the pictureVelleius was attempting to draw, and that the benefits from them had ac-crued to Octavian, not to Antony. An argument from silence is dangerous inan author as brief and selective as Velleius, but other evidence can bebrought to bear, indicating that after Brundisium Pollio was serving Octa-vian.

    It is essential to determine which province Pollio governed after his con-sulship. The pact of Brundisium divided the Roman world, and the line ofdivision fell at Scodra, roughly at the mouth of the Drin and halfway up theAdriatic coast.'32 Macedonia in the south fell to Antony's portion and Illy-ricum in the north to Octavian. Which did Pollio occupy? The generally ac-cepted view, powerfully endorsed by Syme, is that he governed Macedo-nia.133Thereare two fundamental supporting arguments. The first,that Pollioas Antony's man must have governed Antony's province, does not here con-cern us. The present argument is to determine whether or not Pollio was An-tony's man after his consulship, and the identification of the province ismerely one step in the proof. In any case it will not be forgotten that after thecapitulation of Perusia Antony's brother, Lucius, was dispatched by Octa-vian to Spain, apparently with powers overridingthose of the two incumbentproconsuls.'34 His previous hostility was apparently no barrier. Syme'sweightiest argument, however, is that the Parthini were located in the hin-terland of Dyrrhachium, some forty miles south of Scodra and therefore inAntony's sphere of influence. The homeland of the Parthini was certainlysouth of the line of demarcation,'35but did Pofllo need to have held Mace-donia in order to have qualified for a triumph over them? That is the crucialpoint, and it requires careful consideration.Ever since the outbreak of civil war in 49 B. C. the Dalmatian coast hadbeen in a very volatile state. In 48/7 Gabinius had been attacked by the indi-

    181 Vell. II 76,3 (quoted n. 43); cp. II 86,3.182 App. V 65,274; cf. Dio XLVIII 28,4; Liv. Per. CXXVII; Plut. Ant. 30 & 61.13a Syme, 'Pollio, Saloninus and Salonae', CQ 31 (1937) 39 ff., RR pp. 222 f., Broughton, MRRII 387-8, Gabba, Appiano. . ., p. 238 (cf. B. C. V, p. 130). For older treatments see Drumann -

    Groebe, GeschichieRoms,II 8 f., Gardthausen, AugustusundseineZeit, 1 1,236, Tarn, CAHX 49.134 App. V 54,229.l35 Caes. B. C. III 11, 41, 42; App. V 75,320; Plin. III 22,145; Strab,VII 7,8 (326); Mela 113.The dedications to luppiter Parthinus found at Uzice, south of Belgrade (CIL III 8353; 14613),have no evidential value for the location of the Parthini, cf. E. Swoboda, Klio 30 (1937) 290-305,and, more concisely, Syme, CQ 31 (1937) 42 n. 3.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    25/34

    464 A. B. BOSWORTHgenous tribes of Illyricum and forced to take refuge in Salona.136A year ortwo later P. Vatinius was commissioned to bring the rebels to heel, and hiscorrespondence with Cicero is eloquent of the hardships of the struggle withthe mountain peoples.137Vatinius' programme of pacification was interrupt-ed by the murder of Caesar and the renewed outbreak of civil war. His armywas annexed by Brutus,138and the Illyrian tribesmen supported the libera-tors as the most likely guarantors of their independence. The Parthini in par-ticular were attached to Brutus and sent a detachment of cavalry to fight atPhilippi.'39 After Philippi, then, the majority of the tribes of the Dalmatiancoast would have been in revolt, fearing reprisals for their support of Pom-pey and the liberators. The Parthini were clearly at the hub of the sedition,but the bulk of the unrest was in Dalmatia, the theatre of Vatinius' opera-tions and Octavian's province since the pact of Brundisium. Illyricum was abetter base for pacification than Macedonia, whose administrative centre wasseparated from the insurgents by the Pindus range. If Pollio had held Illyri-cum, he might easily have crossed the provincial boundary and defeated theParthini in Macedonia.140In the relatively relaxed atmosphere after Brundi-sium the two dynasts may have been less sensitive about their borders thanthey were later to be.141But, even if Poflio had adhered scrupulously to thelex Corneliamaiestatis, he Parthini had no such scruples. Nothing preventedthem from crossing in force to help their fellow insurgents. Pollio could easi-ly have exterminated an expeditionary force of this nature, inflicting suffi-cient casualties to qualify for a triumph. The fact, then, that he celebrated atriumph over the Parthini is certainly not conclusive evidence that his pro-vince was Macedonia.

    Indeed there is a striking parallel in Octavian's own Illyrian campaigns(35-3 B. C.). Octavian announced in a dispatch to the senate that he hadtamed various chronically troublesome tribes. There follows a list of names,most of them unattested elsewhere and impossible to locate, but peoples areincluded named HfepOerpvcrarnd TavAavrlovI'.142 ow it is very unlikelythat the IHep6E?vcragaof Appian and Octavian are identical to the Parthinidefeated by pollio.143 The form is unique and unattested elsewhere.144But

    186 App. Ill. 12,36; Cic. ad Atl. XI 16,1.187 App. 111.13,37-8; Cic. ad Fam. V 10; cf. Broughton, MRR 1I 310.138 Cic. Pbil. X 6,13; App. Ill. 13,39. 139 App. IV 88,373; V 75,320.140 cf. Syme, CQ 31 (1937) 43; K. M. T. Atkinson, Historia 9 (1960) 451.1'" Appian suggests fear of encroaching upon Antony's provinces as a reason for Octavian'sfailure to pursue Sextus Pompeius; V 127,525 0 1r nV adAAorptavpX?Iv rlv 'Avzoviov

    XvAaa6aevos ,upfla)11v. 142 App. Ill. 16,46.143 E. Swoboda, Octavian und Illyricum (1932) pp. 86 f., W. Schmitthenner, Historia 7

    (1958) 202.14' In other contexts Appian uses the form HlapOlvoi (Ill. 2,4; BC V 75,320).

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    26/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 465the Taulantiiarea very different ase. Theirlocationis certain,attestedsinceThucydides in the vicinity of Epidarnus/Dyrrhachium.145 ertainlytheirhomelandwas in the immediateneighbourhoodof thatof the Parthini,wellinsideAntony's province. In that case,either Octavianviolated the frontierandextendedhis operations o Macedonia,or he inflicteda defeat on Taulan-tian tribesmen inside Illyricum. There is no reason why Polio should nothave done the same.We thereforehave to examinethe rest of the evidence to decide whichprovince Pollio held. One datum an be summarilydismissed.According tothe Vergilian commentatorsPollio captured he city of Salona n the courseof his campaign.146 his statementis associated with two glaring errors,namelythatPollio commandeda Germanicusxercitus,nd thathe celebratedhis triumphbefore his consulship.The captureof Salona,then, occursin adubiouscontext,and thereis no hint in any historicalsourcethatthe city hadbeen lost. In 48 B. C. it hadsuccessfullyresisteda jointattackby Dalmatiantribesmenand the Pompeian, M. Octavius; 147that it latersuccumbed s un-attestedand most unlikely. In allprobability he captureof Salona s a fabri-cation, the intention to supplya derivation or the name of Pollio's son, Sa-loninus, who had been put forward as a candidate or the child of Vergil'sMessianicEclogue.148We mustmove to more reliableevidence, but such is

    145 Thuc. 1 24,1; Ps-Scylax 26; Eratosthenes ap. Steph. Byz. sv. JvppdX1ov; Strab. VII 7,8(326); Aelian VH XIV 1; Ptol. III 12,4; Mela II 3. Pliny (NH III 144) says that at one time theTaulantii were found between Epidaurus and Scodra, and this was gratefully seized by Fluss, REIV A 2527 (so Schmitthenner, op. cit. p. 202), to explain Octavian's operations against them. It isclear, however, that Pliny is speaking of the distant past ('praeterea multorum Graecorum defi-ciens memoria, nec non et civitatum validarum'), and he may -well be referring to the Taulantianexpansion of the early Hellenistic period. But it is certain that by the time of Augustus the Taulan-tians had contracted to their old domicile. Strabo attests them in the vicinity of Epidamnus/Dyr-rhachium, as does Aelian and even Byzantine writers (Zosimus V 26,1; Procop. Gotb.1 1,13; Zon-aras IX 25). Lucan, it should be noted, places the Taulantii in the hinterland of Dyrrhachium inthe course of his description of the fighting of 48 B. C. (Pharr. VI 16).

    146 Serv. Ecl. 3,88; 4,1; 8,12; Schol. Bern. Etl. 4 praef.; 8,6; Porphyrio ad Hor. Odes II1,15.147 Caes. B. C. III 9; Dio XLII 11,1; cf. Carcopino, Virgile c le mysrte de la 4e iclogue

    (1930), p. 173.146 So Syme, CQ 31 (1937) 42 ff., who argues persuasively that Saloninus cannot legitimately bederived from Salonae ("it is nothing more nor less than an impeccable derivation from the perfect-ly respectable gentile name 'Salonius' "). It is over-sceptical, however, to deny that Pollio had ason named Saloninus; the name ran in his family (Tac. Ann. III 75,1), and at least one other of hissons died young and virtually unattested (Sen. Exc. Contr. IV praef. 5). Since the appearance

    of Syme's article Andre has built upon this alleged capture of Salonae and produced thehypothesis that Pollio commanded a combined military operation, sponsored jointly byOctavian and Antony ('Quelques points obscurs de la vie d'Asinius Pollion', REL 25 (1947)142 if.); cf. also G. Alfoldy, Bevolkerung nd Gesellschaftder romitchenProvinz Dalmatien (1956),pp. 101 f.30 1-listoria XXI/3

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    27/34

    466 A. B. BOSWORTHunfortunatelynot forthcoming.Appian records an expedition against theParthini,launchedby Antony after his arrival n Athens in autumn39.149Now it is not impossiblethatPollio commanded his razziaas proconsulofMacedonia;the Fasti Capitolini ive no year for his triumph,which couldhave been celebratedn Octoberof either39 or 38 B. C.'r0Probabilityhow-ever inclinestowards39. In his eighth Eclogue Vergil describesPollio's ap-proachthrough Illyricumand north Italy,and it is clear from his languagethat a triumph had alreadybeen decreed.16'Now the Eclogues were appa-rently completed in 39 B. C. The evidence is admittedly derivedfrom theVergiliancommentators,but they arehere coherentandprobablyderive ul-timately rom the learnedAsconiusPedianus.'62n that case Pollio will havecelebratedhistriumph n October 39, andVergilearliern the yearanticipat-ed the celebration.If the triumphwas held in 39, Pollio cannot have com-mandedAntony's punitiveforce.Dio, it maybe added, placesPollio'svicto-ries firmly n 39, againbefore Antony reachedAthens. IndeedAntony'sex-pedition is best explainedas a responseto an earliersuccess of Pollio. If amaraudingarmyof Parthinihad been defeated n Illyricum, t would havebeen logical for Antony to have continued operationsby attackingtheirhomelandin Macedonia.

    We areleft with a few scatteredpieces of evidence,but the consensusisthat Pollio's provincewasIllyricum.Horace speaksot a Delmaticusriumpbus(OdesII 1,26), but thds s inconclusive.The Dalmatianswere ethnicallydis-persed over a wide area,weUbeyond the laterRomanprovince of Dalma-tia.'5 Moreover Macedonicusriumphus ould have been recalcitrant o anylyric metreused by the poet. Florus, however, is more difficult o dismiss.He has only one briefparagraphabout Dalmatia,'"' eferring n passingtoAsinius Pollio, who mulctedthe Delmatae of land, arms and cattle. In thesamecontexthe mentionsC. MarciusFigulus,who in 156 B. C. had burnedthe city of Delminiumandoperated n the generalareaof Narona2156lorus

    "I"App. V 75,320. For the date see Kromayer, Hermes29 (1894) 556. It appears that, when An-tony left Italy after the peace of Misenum, he had alreadyproduced a daughter by Octavia (Plut.Ant. 33; cf. PIR' A 884).

    1"0 I. I. XIII 1,86. Pollio's triumph comes between that of L. Marcius Censorinus on Jan. 1,40,and that of Ventidius Bassus on Nov. 27, 38.

    1'" Verg. Eel. 8,12-3 'atque haec sine tempora circum inter victricis hederam tibi serperelauros'.

    162 For Vergil's inception of the Eclogues at the age of 28 see Serv. Ecl. praef. 3, 26 H; Probus,Ecl. praef. 323,13; 329,5 H (Asconius). For their completion in three years see Schol. Bern. Vita25; Serv Aen. praef. 2,9 H. The combination gives 42-39 as the period of composition; cf.Buchner, P. VergiliusMaro (1957), p. 33.

    155 cf. Syme,CQ 31 (1937)42.'5' FlorusII 25 (IV 10).165 Liv. Per. XLVII; App. Ill. 11,31-2; Obsequens 16; cf. Polyb. XXXII 14,2.

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    28/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 467also mentions the mining operations of C. Vibius Postumus, Tiberius'legate in A. D. 6-9 and probably the first governor of the newlyestablishedprovince of Dalmatia.166The Delmatae dealt with by Figulusand Postumus were unequivocallyin Illyricum,which fell to OctavianatBrundisium,and it is a natural nferencethat Pollio's area of competencewasthe same.The evidence of Dio points in the same direction.He lists the foreignwarsof 39 B. C., beginning with Ventidius' great victory at the CilicianGates,continuingwith a note on Pollio'svictoryover the Parthini,andconcludingwith the exploits in Spainof Pollio's colleague,Cn. Domitius Calvinus.157Dio unfortunatelydoes not mentionPoflio'sprovince,but he canbe supple-mented fromVelleius.Velleius too gives a list of the militaryadventuresaf-ter the peace of Misenum.In the east he mentionsVentidius'victory, likeDio emphasising he death of the Parthianprince,Pacorus.168 ext Velleiusmoves to Octavian,who in thisperiod,he says, toughenedhis armiesby fre-quentcampaigns n IllyricumandDalmatia,while in SpainDomitius Calvi-nusrestoredold traditionsof discipline.169 he sequence n Velleius is identi-calto thatin Dio, but the expeditions n Illyricumand Dalmatiaareexplidtlyplaced in Octavian'sportion. It is hard to resist the conclusion that thesecampaigns n Illyricumwerefought by Pollio, who wasthereforeOctavian'sman.If Poflio did hold Illyricum, t perhapsrequiressome explanationwhy hedoes not figure in Appian'sIllyrica,which gives a continuous,if haphazard,historyof Romanoperations n Illyricumdown to Octavian'scampaignsof35-3 B. C. In aUprobabilitythe omission is accidental.Appian'snarrativeproceedsbriefly and erratically hrough the operations of Vatinius,endingwith his surrender o Brutusimmediatelybefore the Philippicampaign.160The narrativebreaks off at this point, andAppianchangessources,movingto the autobiographyof Augustus, from which he excerptedhis account ofthe fighting of 35-3 B. C.l16 n the intervalcamePollio'scampaignof 39, andit hasfallen out of Appian'snarrative hanksto his abruptchange of source.Augustus, it may be added, was preoccupiedwithhis own achievements,orlack of them, and will not have gone out of his way to publicisethe earliervictory of Pollio.162

    1'6 Dio LVI 15,3 with Boissevain's note adloc.; Vei. 11116,2.157 Dio XLVIII 3941,6 (Ventidius); 41,7 (Polio); 42 (Calvinus).168 Vell. II 78,1; cf. Dio XVIII 41,34."Il Vell. II 78,3; cf. Dio XVIII 42,2.160 App. IIM.3,39. The change comes abruptly at 111.14,42.161 III. 14,42 is explicit testimony that Appian used the autobiography at first hand; cf. Gabba,Appiano . . ., pp. 215 ff.162 cf. III. 15,43 ov yap dAAoTpIanpQUe; o6 eflaaTrSdAA'Tdai1avToiDv1ypaOvv.

    30*

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    29/34

    468 A. B. BoswoRTHThereis another,moreimportant,omission in Appian. There is no refer-

    ence in book V of the Emphyliao Polio's triumphover the Parthini.Thismay of course be sheer carelessnessor selectivenesson Appian's part. It is,however, often, and plausibly, arguedthat this portion of his work is de-rived from the Historiesof Pollio himself,163nd it maywell be that Polliotoo omitted or slurredover his own triumph.Velleius,it has been observed,has nothing about the triumph, although he gives PolIio a consistentlyfa-vourablepress elsewhere. This common silence may well meanthat therewas somethingdiscreditable boutthe triumph.Now, if Pollio hadchangedsides in 40 B. C. and governed Illyricumfor Octavian,he would have beenhighly vulnerable o Antony's laterchargesof ingratitude.He had not evenMessalUa orvinus'excuse that Antony had polluted himselfby his liaisonwith Cleopatra.The best planthereforewas to emphasisehis merits n win-ning over Ahenobarbus o Antony, and to slide over the triumphwon inOctavian's service.I concludethat the province Pollio took over in late 40 B. C. was Illyri-cum,andthathe hadrecentlychangedsides.It remains o finda motive,andthatmotive is best lookedfor in thePerusinecampaign. t is well known thatin the winterof 41/40 B. C. Antony'sbrotherandwife werebesiegedin Pe-rusiaby Octavian and his two generals,SalvidienusRufusand Agrippa.'64At nearby Fulginiaethe Antonian relief forces had mustered but failed toraise the siege.At the headof these forceswereVentidiusandPolio with le-gions fromthe two Gauls, supplementedby Antoniansfrom the newlyesta-blishedveterancoloniesunderthe commandof Plancus,Crassus,Ateiusandothers.'65 t is an interestingexerciseto determinethe forces involved inthese transactions.The figuresderive from Appianand cannotbe takenasabsolutely precise,but they do permita rough approximationof the relativestrengthsof both sides. Now beforethe pact of BrundisiumOctaviandis-posed of rathermorethan 40 legions.'68 Of these 11had beenrecouped rom

    16 Gabba, Appiano . . ., pp. 189 ff., B. C. V pp. xxxvii-xlii. Much of the argument here,based on the hypothesis of a bias in Pollio hostile to Octavian's propaganda, seems to memisguided. However, the contrast of light and dark between the portraits of Pollio and Plancusin Appian BC V is indicative that the source is at least highly favourable to Pollio (Gabba,Appiano . . ., p. 199 n. 1).

    164 App. V 35,140; Syme RR, p. 211, Andre, REL 25 (1947) 139 ff.14 App. BC V 50,208. Plancus is attested settling veterans at Beneventum (ILS 886 = E&J187; cf. App. V 33,130). There were numerous settlements of Antonian legionaries in Italy during

    the spring and summer of 41 (App. V 14,58; Dio XLVIII 5-6), and it is a reasonable assumptionthat P. Canidius Crassus was in charge of land distributions like Plancus at Beneventum andL. Memmius at Luca (ILS 887 = E&J 188). According to Appian 33,130 Ateius had some job inGaul, probably a similar veteran settlement.

    1"6 App. V 53,221. I. Hahn, Acta Aniiqua 17 (1969) 215-6, does not accept Appian's figure,arguing that this grand total is inconsistent with the figures for the individual army corps listed

  • 8/12/2019 BOSWORTH, Asinius Pollio and Augustus

    30/34

    Asinius Pollio and Augustus 469Gaul afterthe deathof Fufius Calenusearly m40 B. C., and two more hadbeencaptured romPlancusduringthe retreat rom Perusia.'67 hereremainsome 27 legions, comprising the forces of Octavian and L. Antonius,168which had amalgamated fterthe siege. Of these the troops of Luciuswerein the minority;duringthe siege he did not hazarda pitchedbattlebecausehis troops were numerically nferiorand for the most part raw recruits.'69Octavian, then, had a numerical superiorityover the army in Perusia,but perhaps not very great, say 15 or 16 legions against 11 or 12. Onthe other hand we know that the Antonian relief forces amounted to13 legions, all veterans (yeyvyuvaqju6e'va).170hese, when taken with thebeleaguered orces at Perusia, amountedto a clearsuperiorityof numbers,which would have been overwhelminghad the troops of Calenusbeenadded.171Despite their numbersthe Antonianswere half-heartedn the extreme ntheir efforts to relieve Perusia.When Octavianbegan his circumvallation(autumn41), the Antornian enerals,though summoned to relieve the city,retreatedbefore they could effecta junction.Accordingly they took up se-parate waiting positions at Ravenna, Ariminum and Spoletium, held incheck by relativelysmallforces (App. B. C. V 33). After Lucius'abortiveat-tempt on January 1, 40, to breakthroughthe blockade,the relievinggene-ralsconferredat Fulginiae.TherePlancusallegedlycounselleddelay,his ad-vice prevailing over the more bellicose attitude of Ventidius and Pollio(App. V 35, 139ff.). It is quite possible that on this occasionPlancus didcounsel delay, but the previous months of inactivity cannot be laid at his

    earlier in the text. On his calculations Octavian could only have amassed 29 legions beforeBrundisium. Unfortunately Hahn makes no allowance for the recruiting which took pl