¹ ‘Der Rechenschaftsbericht des Augustus’, HZ 57 (1887), 385–97Google Scholar = Gesammelte Schriften iv.1 (1906), 247–58Google Scholar. For a useful compendium of views see Ramage, E. S., The Nature and Purpose of Augustus' “Res Gestae”, Historia Einzelschr. 54 (1987)Google Scholar, esp. 135–43.

² See in particular the magisterial essays of Brunt, P. A., Roman Imperial Themes (1990), 96–109Google Scholar, 433–80; cf. also Gruen, E., ‘The imperial policy of Augustus’, in Raaflaub, K. A. and Toher, M. (eds), Between Republic and Empire (1990), 395–416Google Scholar.

³ See, most recently, J. Pollini, ‘Man or god: divine assimilation and imitation in the late Republic and early Empire’, in Raaflaub and Toher, op. cit. (n. 2), 334–57, esp. 346–7 with fig. 13 (on RIC I² 59 no. 256). For the coins of Demetrius see Kraay, C. M., Greek Coins (1966), pl. 174, no. 573Google Scholar. The Battle of Salamis, which they commemorate, was quite literally the crowning glory of the Antigonids, and could be viewed as the Hellenistic analogue of Actium.

⁴ Aen. 6.782: ‘imperium terris, animos aequabit Oympo’ (‘Rome shall make its empire equal to the world, its spirit to Olympus’).

⁵ Aen. 6.806–7: ‘et dubitamus adhuc virtutem extendere factis | aut metus Ausonia prohibet consistere terra?’ (‘and do we still hesitate to extend the scope of our excellence by action, or does fear forbid our settling on Ausonian land?’).

⁶ Norden, E., ‘Ein Panegyrikus auf Augustus in Vergils Aeneis’, RhM 54 (1899), 466–82Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften zum klassischen Altertum (1966), 422–36, esp. 424–5. Norden aptly adduced texts such as Men. Rhet. 388.6–10 (pp. 112–14 Russell and Wilson) and Luc., , Dial. Mort. 14.6Google Scholar, which show that the comparison between Alexander and Heracles/Dionysus was a rhetorical topos. He was not concerned to demonstrate that the topos was based on historical tact.

⁷ For Alexander's emulation of Heracles see Arr. 4.8.1–2; 4.30.4; 5.3.2–4 with Bosworth, A. B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander (hereafter HCA) ii (1995), 180–1Google Scholar, 213–19; idem, Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph (1996), 118–19. Eratosthenes was to express extreme scepticism, and denounced the Macedonians for manufacturing evidence; but even he accepted it as axiomatic that Alexander used Heracles as a role model.

⁸ Aen. 6.804–5: ‘nec qui pampineis victor iuga flectit habenis | Liber, agens celso Nysae de vertice tigris’ (‘nor he who directs his chariot in triumph, Liber, driving his tigers down from the lofty peak of Nysa’).

⁹ Curt. 7.9.15; Metz Epit. 12. On this tradition see now Bosworth, A. B., ‘Alexander, Euripides and Dionysos: the motivation for apotheosis’, in Wallace, R. W. and Harris, E. (eds), Transitions to World Power 360–146: Studies in Honor of E. Badian (1997), 140–66, esp. 146–8Google Scholar.

¹⁰ On Mt Meru see, for example, Stutley, M. and J., A Dictionary of Hinduism (1977), 190–1Google Scholar, and for the possible survival of the toponym in the NW of the Indian sub-continent see the literature cited in O. von Hinüber‘s Artemis edition of Arrian's Indike (Arrian, , Der Alexanderzug: Indische Geschichte (1985), p. 1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

¹¹ Arr. 5.1.6; Ind. 1.5; Strab. 15.1.8 (687); Curt. 8.10.7, 12; Metz Epit. 36; Pliny, , NH 6.79Google Scholar. On the Greek tradition and Alexander's adaptation of it to the Indian data see my article, op. cit. (n. 9), 149–54.

¹² Arr. 4.10.6–7 (cf. 11.7); Curt. 8.5.8, 11, 17. On the basic credibility of this tradition, embellished though it may be by imperial rhetoric, see now Bosworth, HCA, op. cit. (n. 7), ii, 77–80. Uncompromising scepticism, however, persists; see Cawkwell, G. L., ‘The deification of Alexander’, in Worthington, I. (ed.), Ventures into Greek History (1994), 293–306Google Scholar, esp. 296–7.

¹³ Arr., Ind. 7.2–8.3 = FGrH 715 F 12; Diod. 2.38.3, 7 = FGrH 715 F 4.

¹⁴ See below, pp. 9–10.

¹⁵ Athen. 5.200D–201 C = FGrH 627 F 2. On the details see Rice, E. E., The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (1983), 82–99Google Scholar. Callixeinus may have exaggerated the dimension and numbers involved, but I see no reason to assume that he has invented the entire scene, as seems implied in a recent article (McKechnie, P., ‘Diodorus Siculus and Hephaistion's pyre’, CQ 45 (1995), 418–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 428–9). But, even if it is fiction, the description is prime evidence for the popularity of the newly created legend of Dionysus in India.

¹⁶ For Homer, Nysa was a mountain (Il. 6.133; HHym. 26.3–5), but the Alexander historians applied the name to the city (HCA, op. cit. (n. 7), ii, 205). Vergil has conflated the two traditions. He accepts Dionysus' triumphal return from Indian Nysa, but considers Nysa to have been a mountain (the same confusion exists in Philostr., , VA 2.7–8Google Scholar, who describes Nysa as a mountain, but even so locates Mt Meros in close proximity (VA 2.9)).

¹⁷ Arr., , Ind. 15.1–3Google Scholar = Nearchus, FGrH 133 F 7; Strab. 15.1.37 (703) = Megasthenes, FGrH 715 F 21 (a). This passage of Vergil is the first demonstrable reference to Indian tigers in Latin literature. He may well have been inspired by the recent Indian embassy with its gift of tigers, then seen for the first time in the West (Dio 54.9.8).

¹⁸ Aen. 6.794–5: ‘super et Garamantas et Indos | proferet imperium’ (‘he will extend the empire beyond the Garamantes and Indians’).

¹⁹ He triumphed on 27 March 19 B.C. (Degrassi, , Inscriptiones Italiae xiii.1.21, 571; EJ³, p. 36Google Scholar). The literary references to the campaign are Pliny, , NH 5.36–7Google Scholar; Strab. 3.5.3 (169); cf. Dio 54.12.1.

²⁰ Pliny, , NH 5.36Google Scholar: ‘ipsum in triumpho praeter Cidanum et Garamam omnium aliarum gentium urbiumque nomina ac simulacra duxisse…’ (‘(Balbus) exhibited in his triumph alongside Cydanum and Garama the names and images of all the other peoples and cities…’).

²¹ Sen., , Suas. 1.1Google Scholar; cf. 1.2: ‘vicimus qua lucet…tempus est Alexandrum cum orbe et cum sole desinere’ (‘we have conquered as far as there is light…it is time for Alexander to turn aside along with the earth and the sun’). The rhetoric can be paralleled in the Alexander historians proper; cf. Curt. 9.3.8 (Coenus at the Hyphasis); 9.4.18 (before the Malli campaign); cf. Braccesi, L., Alessandro e la Germania (1991), 28–35Google Scholar.

²² Diod. 18.4.4; cf. Arr. 7.1.1–3; Curt. 10.1.17; Plut., , Al. 68.1Google Scholar. For a recent discussion see Bosworth, A. B., From Arrian to Alexander (1988), 190–202Google Scholar.

²³ Megasthenes, FGrH 715 F I (Nebuchadnezzar conquers Africa and Spain, and transplants Iberian peoples to the Caucasus — a project which Diod. 18.4.4 ascribes to Alexander); Strab. 15.1.6 = FGrH 715 F II (a). On this see further, Bosworth, A. B., ‘The historical setting of Megasthenes' Indica’, CP 91 (1996), 113–27Google Scholar, esp. 121–3.

²⁴ For the temporary annexation of Mauretania see Dio 49.43.7; 53.26.2, and on the colonial foundations Pliny, , NH 5.2Google Scholar (‘in ora Oceani colonia Zulil’), 5 with Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower (1971), 591, 595–7Google Scholar.

²⁵ Aen. 6.798–9: ‘huius in adventum iam nunc et Caspia regna | responsis horrent divum et Maeotia tellus’ (‘even now, in anticipation of his coming, the realms of the Caspian and the land of Maeotis shudder at the oracular responses of the gods’).

²⁶ Dio 54.9.4–5; Vell. 2.94.4; Suet., , Tib. 9.1Google Scholar; Tac., , Ann. 2.3.2Google Scholar. Res Gestae 27.2 celebrates this as a renunciation of imperial expansion: Augustus might have made Armenia a province, but followed tradition in entrusting it to a native king. The Albanian and Iberian kings are recorded as sending embassies (RG 31.2; see below), and they presumably submitted to Roman suzerainty (cf. Strab. 6.4.2 (288), with significant qualifications: ‘they are properly subjugated, but are rebellious because of the Romans' preoccupations elsewhere’). The last recorded campaign against them was that of P. Canidius Crassus, in 36 B.C. (Broughton, , MRR ii, 401Google Scholar).

²⁷ Plut., , Pomp. 38.2–3Google Scholar; Mor. 324A. On the rhetorical background see Bosworth, op. cit. (n. 22), 129–33.

²⁸ This, Pliny, (NH 2.168Google Scholar) notes, was a popular theory, and Lucan 3.277–9 explicitly couples the Maeotis with the Straits of Gibraltar: both, he claims, admit the Ocean into the Mediterranean. The theory probably goes back to the Hellenistic period (Bosworth, HCA, op. cit. (n. 7), ii, 240–1).

²⁹ Diod. 40.4: καὶ τὰ ὃρια τῆς ἡγεμονίας τοῖς ὃροις τῆς γῆς προβιβάσας (‘extending the boundaries of the empire to the limits of the earth’). On the historical circumstances of this dedication one may consult the views of H. Schaefer, expounded and expanded in Vogel-Weidemann, U., ‘The dedicatory inscription of Pompeius Magnus in Diodorus 40.4’, Acta Classica 28 (1985), 67–75Google Scholar (I owe this reference to Jane Bellemore). Pliny cites the later dedicatory inscription which Pompey erected in the temple of Minerva after his triumph. This also stressed the conquest of the lands from the Maeotis to the Red Sea (NH 7.97), and stated that Pompey's achievements rivalled those of Alexander and almost those of Heracles and Dionysus (NH 7.95). This is now a familiar triad, linking the concepts of world conquest and apotheosis.

³⁰ Dio 37.21.3. On the cloak of Alexander see App., Mithr. 177.577, where healthy scepticism is displayed (εἲ τῷ πιστόν ὲστιν).

³¹ See particularly Cic., , Tusc. 5.49Google Scholar; Sen., , Ep. Mor. 108.34Google Scholar; Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.18.11–12Google Scholar; cf. Mamertinus, in Pan. Lat. 11.16.6Google Scholar, contrasting the Maeotis with the Mauretanian shore, both extremities of the known world. For the poem in general see J. Vahlen, Ennianae poesis reliquiae ² (1928), 216; Walbank, F. W., ‘The Scipionic legend’, PCPS 13 (1967), 54–69Google Scholar, esp. 57–8, where, following a suggestion by Otto Skutsch, he argues for a lacuna in the received text; that does not affect the interpretation as a whole.

³² Cicero apparently borrowed the image in his De Republica: Lactantius excoriates Ennius for suggesting that Africanus could climb to heaven by way of a mass of corpses, and adds that even Cicero used the conceit, reminding Africanus that the same door had opened for Heracles (‘nam et Heracli eadem ista porta patuit’: Div. inst. 1.18.13 = Cic., De rep. F 6 Ziegler). Sen., , Ep. Mor. 108.34Google Scholar also attests that Cicero adapted the epigram.

³³ Apart from Ennius and his derivatives it is found only in the Latin vulgate (Gen. 27.17; Ps. 77.23), and is consequently common currency among modern European readers.

³⁴ Verg., , Georg. 3.261Google Scholar (in the context of the death of Leander). Sen., , Ep. Mor. 108.34Google Scholar confirms that it was conscious imitation: Ennius took it from Homer (Il. 5.749; 8.393), and Vergil from Ennius.

³⁵ Verg., , Aen. 6.846Google Scholar: ‘unus qui nobis cunctando restituis ran’ (cf. Livy 30.26.10; Ovid, , Fast. 2.242Google Scholar). It was a line particularly familiar to Augustus, who quoted it in a famous letter to Tiberius (Suet., , Tib. 21.5Google Scholar).

³⁶ Sil., , Pun. 15.78–82Google Scholar:

at, quis aetherii servatur seminis ortus,

caeli porta patet. referam quid cuncta domantem

Amphitryoniaden? quid, cui, post Seras et Indos

captivo Liber cum signa referret ab Euro,

Caucaseae currum duxere per oppida tigres?

(‘On the other hand the gate of heaven stands open for those who have preserved the divine element born within them. Need I speak of Amphitryon's son, who placed all things under his sway, or of Liber, whose chariot was drawn through the towns by Caucasian tigers when he came back in triumph from the conquered East, after subduing the Seres and Indians?’)

Silius takes Dionysus' conquests beyond India to China, but makes the tigers Caucasian, as required by earlier convention (cf. Varr., , LL 5.100Google Scholar). If pressed, the terminology might relate to the Hindu Kush, which was regarded by many as an eastern extension of the Caucasus proper.

³⁷ Verg., , Aen. 1.286–96Google Scholar.

³⁸ As suggested long ago by Kenny, E. J., CR 18 (1968), 106Google Scholar, an approach sympathetically treated in Austin's commentary ad loc. See also Horsfall, N., ‘The structure and purpose of Vergil's Parade of Heroes’, in Ancient Society: Resources for Teachers 12 (1982), 12–18Google Scholar, esp. 14, arguing for similar ambiguity at Aen. 6.789–92. The issue has recently been debated in a series of articles in Symbolae Osloenses by O'Hara, J. J. and Kraggerud, E. (SO 67 (1992), 103–12Google Scholar; 69 (1994), 72–82, 83–93). Kraggerud maintains that only Augustus can be designated by Vergil (more recently Dobbin, R. F., ‘Julius Caesar in Jupiter's prophecy, Aeneid, Book 1’, CA 14 (1995), 1–40Google Scholar, has argued that the passage refers predominantly to Caesar), whereas O'Hara argues that the focus shifts back and forth between Caesar and Augustus. (I am grateful to Terry Ryan for these references.)

³⁹ See, for instance, the Fasti Capitolini, in which the dictator is invariably styled ‘C. Iulius C.f. C.n. Caesar’, whereas his heir emerges at his first consulate (43 B.C.) as ‘C. Iulius C.f. [C.n. Caesar qui] postea Imp.[Caesar divi f. appel(latus)]’. On the nomenclature in general see Syme, R., Roman Papers i (1979), 365–77Google Scholar; and for the usage in Latin prose authors, see Rubincam, C., ‘The nomenclature of Julius Caesar and the later Augustus in the Julio-Claudian period’, Historia 41 (1992), 88–103Google Scholar. The scope for misunderstanding was considerable: when Drusus died in 9 B.C., he was publicly commemorated by Augustus and interred in Augustus' Mausoleum (Dio 55.2.3; Cons. Liv. 66–7 with Dio 53.30. 5; 54.28.5), but the Periocha of Livy 142 has him ‘buried in the tumulus of C. Iulius and extolled by his step-father, Caesar Augustus’.

⁴⁰ Ovid at least drew the inference. At the end of the Metamorphoses he produces almost a pastiche of Vergil. Venus complains about the imminent death of Caesar, to be reassured by Jupiter: Caesar has completed his destiny, and will be succeeded by his heir, who will subjugate the earth and inaugurate an era of peace and legality before at length taking his place in heaven (Met. 15.807–39). On this see Ramage, E. S., ‘Augustus' treatment of Julius Caesar’, Historia 34 (1985), 223–45Google Scholar, esp. 240–1, and Smith, R. A., ‘Epic recall and the finale of Ovid's Metamorphoses’, MH 51 (1994), 45–53Google Scholar, esp. 50. There is a very similar message in the Fasti, on which see the thorough discussion by Herbert-Brown, G., Ovid and the Fasti: An Historical Study (1994), 109–29, esp. 124–7.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Pliny, , NH 35.27.93Google Scholar (‘item Belli imaginem restrictis ad terga manibus, Alexandro in curru triumphante’). The other picture exhibited by Augustus portrayed Castor and Pollux alongside Victory and Alexander; the connection between conquest and apotheosis could not be more clearly displayed.

⁴² Verg., , Aen. 8.185–9Google Scholar. Compare Livy 1.7.10–13, where Evander establishes the altar in response to a prophecy, and Cacus is a simple rustic, whose death is resented by the other local shepherds (1.7.9). In Dionysius, (AR 1.39.2Google Scholar) he leads a band of brigands, and his death is welcomed by the locals (1.40.1). However, it is the prophecy which moves Evander to establish the altar, and he is eager to institute divine honours for Heracles (1.40.2). Vergil by contrast ignores the prophecy and demonizes Cacus, who becomes a sinister ogre, whose removal is an incomparable benefaction. On the evolution of Cacus from local deity to bogeyman extraordinaire see Ogilvie, R. M., A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (1965), 55–8Google Scholar.

⁴³ For the evidence see Degrassi, Inscriptiones Italiae xiii.2.493–5. Evander's ceremony in the Aeneid is located close to the Tiber, , ‘in a grove before the city’ (Aen. 8.104Google Scholar). Its situation outside the city is hardly consistent with the ceremony in the Forum Boarium, in the old heart of Rome immediately south of the Porta Carmentalis and Palatine where Aeneas begins his tour of Rome (Aen. 8.337–44). The Porta Trigemina, further to the south and closer to the Tiber (cf. Platner, S. B. and Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1929), 418Google Scholar) is a better site for a sacrifice outside Evander's city. However, Vergil makes it plain that the altar of the ceremony was the Ara Maxima (Aen. 8.271–2), which was located in the Forum Boarium. The two sites may be deliberately conflated into one. That there is an allusion to Augustus' triple triumph has long been acknowledged (cf. Drews, D. L., The Allegory of the Aeneid (1927), 6–22Google Scholar; Binder, G., Aeneas und Augustus (1971), 42–3Google Scholar; Horsfall, N., A Companion to the Study of Virgil (1995), 163 — ‘remarkably neat’Google Scholar), but discussion has been hitherto weakened by the failure to realize that 13 August, the first day of the triumph, was itself a celebration of Heracles. The coincidence is exact.

⁴⁴ CIL iii.10836. For a dedication at Rome on 13 August, near the Porta Trigemina itself, see CIL vi.9319 + 33803.

⁴⁵ So explicitly Hor., Od. 3.3.9–10 The next lines bring Augustus, Dionysus, and Romulus/Quirinus into the same context.

⁴⁶ Aen. 8.698–700. The shaping of l. 698 (‘omnigenumque deum monstra’) recalls the initial description of Cacus at l. 194 (‘semihominis Caci facies’).

⁴⁷ Aen. 8.725–8:

hic Lelegas Carasque sagittiferosque Gelonos | finxerat…

extremique hominum Morini, Rhenusque bicornis

indomitique Dahae, et pontem indignatus Araxes

(‘Here (Vulcan) had portrayed the Leleges and Carians and arrow-bearing Geloni. …the Morini were there, the most remote of mankind, and the Rhine of double horn, the unconquered Dahae and the Araxes which disdained a bridge’).

⁴⁸ Dio 51.21.6. For the triumph of Carrinas on 14 July 28 B.C., see Degrassi, , Inscriptiones Italiae xiii.1.345, 570Google Scholar; EJ³, p. 35.

⁴⁹ Caes., , BG 4.21.3Google Scholar, 22.1, 37.1, 38.1; Strab. 4.5.2

⁵⁰ The inspiration for the conceit was probably Antony's grandiose parade of allies during the summer of 32 B.C. While he was at Samos, off the Carian coast, he entertained dynasts from as far afield as the Maeotis and Armenia, who had been ordered to send troops (Plut., , Ant. 56.7Google Scholar). The Maeotis suggested the Geloni, and the context in Caria is reinforced by the coupling of the Leleges and Carians, who were believed to have occupied the coast between Ephesus and Halicarnassus in pre-Hellenic times (cf. Vitruv. 2.8.12; Ovid, , Met. 9.645Google Scholar; Hdt. 1.171.2; cf. Hornblower, S., Mausolus (1982), 12–14Google Scholar). The king of Media also sent forces (Plut., , Ant. 61.3Google Scholar; cf. Dio 49.44.2); that suggested the Caspian, and perhaps led Vergil's imagination to the Dahae, in the steppes east of the Caspian (Strab. 11.8.2 (511)). The Dahae also provided an implicit linkage between Augustus' triumph and Alexander's campaigns.

⁵¹ The Morini are explicitly qualified as ‘extremi’, as elsewhere are the Geloni (Verg., , Georg. 2.115Google Scholar; Hor., , Od. 2.20.18–19Google Scholar). Lucan 7.429 places the Dahae alongside the Indians as paradigms of remoteness.

⁵² The dramatic picture of the outraged river, so admired by Quintilian (Inst. Or. 8.6.11), may derive from Aeschylus' description of the uncrossable ‘hybristic’ river (PV 717–21), which the Scholia identify as the Araxes. For all its unruliness it was now subject to Rome.

⁵³ Arr. 4.8.3, 10.6–7; Curt. 8.5.8, 11; cf. Bosworth, HCA, op. cit. (n. 7), ii, 55–6.

⁵⁴ Hyp., , Epit. 21, 43Google Scholar. By contrast Leosthenes and his men can expect no more than paramount honour in Hades, even though their achievements eclipse those of the heroes of Troy (Epit. 35–40). Their only immortality is that of posthumous glory (Epit. 24).

⁵⁵ Athen. 6.253E = Duris, FGrH 76 F 13; 253C = Demochares, FGrH 75 F 2. Cf. Habicht, C., Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3 Jahrhundert v. Chr (1979), 34–44Google Scholar; idem, Athen (1995), 98–100.

⁵⁶ Curt. 8.10.1: ‘patrem Liberum atque Herculem fama cognitos esse; ipsum coram adesse cernique’ (‘Father Liber and Heracles were known to them by repute; he himself was actually present and visible’). The tradition recurs in the Metz Epitome (34), and was clearly part of the Vulgate. On its historicity see Bosworth, op. cit. (n. 9), 149–54.

⁵⁷ Val. Max. 1 praef.: ‘cetera diuinitas opinione colligitur, tua praesenti fide paterno auitoque sideri par uidetur’ (‘others’ divinity is a matter of inference; yours is apparent to us by confidence in your presence and is the equal of your father's and grandfather's star’). See now Fowler, D. P., ‘Notes on Pighius and Valerius Maximus’, CQ 38 (1988), 262–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wardle, D., Valerius Maximus: Memorable Deeds and Sayings: Book I (1998), 71–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Fragments in Jacoby, FGrH 264, and general discussion in Schwartz, E., RE v.670–2Google Scholar = Griechische Geschichtschreiber (1959), 46–9; Jacoby, , RE vii.2750–69Google Scholar = Griechische Historiker (1956), 227–37; Murray, O., ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and pharaonic kingship’, JEA 56(1970), 141–71Google Scholar; Spoerri, W., ‘Hekataios von Abdera’, RLAC 14 (1988), 275–310Google Scholar, esp. 278–82. On the chronology see Stern, M. and Murray, O., ‘Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians’, JEA 59 (1973), 159–68Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Diod. 1.11.1–13.1 = FGrH 264 F 25. On the attribution to Hecataeus see the synopsis of views in Murray, op. cit. (n. 58), 146. The discussion by Spoerri, W., Späthellenistische Berichte über Welt, Kultur und Götter (1959), 201–11Google Scholar, is ultra-sceptical.

⁶⁰ Diod. 1.20.5. This passage and the world conquest of Osiris, in which it is embedded, is usually denounced as an alien insertion of the later Hellenistic period, not the work of Hecataeus. However, as Schwartz long ago observed (RhM 40 (1885), 231 n. 1, glossed over in RE v.670), Plut., Mor. 356A-B combines Osiris' civilizing work in Egypt, as described by Hecataeus, with his traversing of the earth; civilization and conquest are combined in a unitary extract, exactly as we find (on a broader scale) in Diodorus. I discuss this problem at greater length elsewhere.

⁶¹ Diod. 1.17.2–3,6; 19.6–8.

⁶² Diod. 1.18.1, 20.3.

⁶³ Diod. 1.20.1: καὶ στήλας ἰδίας στρατείας

⁶⁴ Diod. 6.1.4. The fragments of Euhemerus have been edited by Winiarczyk, M., Euhemeri Messenii Reliquiae (1991)Google Scholar, and are collected (without commentary) by Jacoby, , FGrH 63Google Scholar. The best complete treatment is still that of Jacoby, , RE vi.952–72Google Scholar = Griechische Historiker, 175–85; see also Vallauri, G., Euemero di Messene (1956)Google Scholar. On the political aspects of the work see Zumschlinge, M., Euhemeros: Staats theorie und staatsutopische Motive (1976Google Scholar).

⁶⁵ Diod. 6.1.6–7 = FGrH 63 F 2; Winiarczyk T 36. Lactant., Div. inst. 1.11.33 = FGrH 63 T 3; Winiarczyk T 65.

⁶⁶ Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.22.22Google Scholar = FGrH 63 F 23; Winiarczyk T 64A; Diod. 6.1.10 = FGrH 63 F2; Winiarczyk T 61.

⁶⁷ Call., Iamb. F 191 (Pfeiffer), much quoted by the hostile critics of Euhemerus. An illustrative selection of critical views is provided by Jacoby, FGrH 63 T 4.

⁶⁸ Cic., De n. d. 1.119. The extant fragments are found preponderantly in Lactantius. Varro quotes the work once for a recondite piece of vocabulary which (he claims) is unique to Ennius' translation (Varr., , RR 1.48.2Google Scholar = FGrH 63 F 26; Winiarczyk T 83).

⁶⁹ HA Claud. 7.7: ‘dicit Ennius de Scipione: “Quantam statuam faciet populus Romanus, quantam columnam, quae res tuas gestas loquatur’” ((Scipio II. 1, p. 212 Vahlen). Cf. also Skutsch, O., The Annals of Q. Ennius (1985), 130, 753Google Scholar, with a conjectural reconstruction of the verses. Ennius may have had in mind Roman monuments like the naval column of Duilius (ILLRP 319; cf. Pliny, , NH 34.20Google Scholar; Quint., , Inst. 1.7.12Google Scholar; Sil., , Pun. 6.663Google Scholar), but it is hard to think that he was not influenced by Euhemerus' description of the golden stele of Zeus, ‘in qua columna sua gesta perscripsit’ (Lactant., Div. inst. 1.11.33 = FGrH 63 T 3; Winiarczyk T 65).

⁷⁰ Lucr. 2.417; Verg., , Georg. 2.139Google Scholar; 4.379; Tibull. 3.2.23; Ovid, , Met. 10.309, 478Google Scholar. For Euhemerus' account of the profusion of frankincense see Diod. 5.41.4–42.1 = FGrH 63 F 3; Winiarczyk T 30.

⁷¹ Val. Flacc. 6.119; Claud. 7.211; 10.94; 35.81. In prose there is a reference in Apul., De mundo 35, and passing notes in geographical authors (Mela 3.81; Pliny, , NH 7.197Google Scholar; 10.5), but surprisingly little as compared with the interest shown in the Augustan age.

⁷² Cic., De n. d. 1.119. Euhemerus is here explicitly categorized with Diagoras, Protagoras, and Prodicus.

⁷³ Cic., De n. d. 2.62; cf. De leg. 2.19: ‘divos et eos qui caelestes semper habiti sunt colunto et olios quos endo caelo merita locaverint, Herculem, Liberum, Aesculapium, Castorem, Pollucem, Quirinum.’

⁷⁴ Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.22.26Google Scholar = FGrH 63 F 23; Winiarczyk T 64A; cf. RG 8. 5. The Greek translation of RG, to which Edwin Judge kindly drew my attention, reads: (‘I transmitted myself to posterity as a model for imitation in many areas’). That is even closer to Ennius.

⁷⁵ cf. Laughton, E., ‘The prose of Ennius’, Eranos 49 (1951), 35–49Google Scholar, with Fraenkel, E., ‘Additional notes on the prose of Ennius’, Eranos 49 (1951), 50–6Google Scholar = Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie (1964), ii.53–8. If the linguistic analysis is correct, Lactantius gave practically verbatim quotations in most cases. The passage in question (Vahlen Fr. X, p. 227) both Laughton and Fraenkel argued was stylistically shaped by Lactantius, but the vocabulary must echo that of Ennius. Lactantius was hardly so attuned to the terminology of the Res Gestae (of which he displays no knowledge elsewhere) that he superimposed it upon the text of Ennius. Similarly, at the beginning of the fragment Lactantius' reference to Zeus having acquired supreme power (‘rerum potitus sit’) is likely to be a close paraphrase of Ennius, not a subconscious grafting of the terminology of RG 34.1. The probability is that Lactantius reflects the wording of Ennius, and Ennius in turn influenced Augustus.

⁷⁶ Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.11.33Google Scholar = FGrH 63 T 3; Winiarczyk T 65; cf. Diod. 6.1.7 = FGrH 63 F 2; Winiarczyk T 36.

⁷⁷ OGIS 458.33–40 = EJ³ 98. Cf. Laffi, U., ‘Le iscrizioni relativi all’ introduzione nel 9 a.C. del nuovo calendario della provincia di Asia’, Studi Classici e Orientali 16 (1967), 5–98Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Dio (56.33.1) is the only source to place the reading of the document in a specific chronological framework. Suet., , Aug. 101.4Google Scholar does not give the circumstances of publication, and Tacitus omits all mention. Admittedly the context in Dio is not above suspicion. The statement of resources, which on his account was read on the same occasion, is placed by Tac., , Ann. 1.11.4Google Scholar in the later debate on the powers of Tiberius. However, there is nothing to contradict the association of the Res Gestae with the funeral honours, and, since the document was to be engraved outside the Mausoleum, it could be argued that the debate on the funeral was the natural place for its first reading.

⁷⁹ von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, U., ‘Res Gestae Divi Augusti’, Hermes 21 (1886), 623–7Google Scholar = Kleine Schriften v.i (1937), 267–71. There is a passing reference to Euhemerus at p. 625; cf. also Kornemann, , RE xvi.228Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ See above, n. 1. For recent, authoritative dismissals of Wilamowitz see, for example, Heuss, A., ‘Zeitgeschichte als Ideologic’, in Lefèvre, E. (ed.), Monumentum Chiloniense (1975), 55–95Google Scholar, esp. 56 n. 3 and Ramage, op. cit. (n. 1), 99 (‘Thus in the RG there is depicted a ruler who remains human, but who has taken on some of the trappings of divinity.’); 138 (‘the connection with Alexander is fanciful and spurious’). Mommsen too claimed that Wilamowitz' concept was incompatible with his (Mommsen's) sober vision of Augustus: ‘Mit meiner Auffassung von Augustus eigenartig temperirtem und alles Excentrische ablehnendem Naturell ist diese Anschauung unvereinbar’ (p. 254). That overlooks the fact that in the Hellenistic period a claim to godhead could be the product of sober calculation.

⁸¹ See particularly Yavetz, Z., ‘The Res Gestae and Augustus' public image’, in Millar, F. and Segal, E. (eds), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects ² (1990), 1–36Google Scholar, esp. 14–20 with the Editors' Note referring to the Tabula Siarensis (AÉ 1991.20; 1984.508, II col. b).

⁸² Diod. 6.1.6–7 = FGrH 63 F 2; Winiarczyk T 36; Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.11.33Google Scholar = FGrH 63 T 3; Winiarczyk T 65; cf. Lactant., Div. inst. 1.22.22–3 = FGrH 63 F 23; Winiarczyk T 64A.

⁸³ Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.11.33Google Scholar: ‘in fano Iovis Triphylii, ubi auream columnam positam esse ab ipso love titulus indicabat’.

⁸⁴ See particularly Koster, S., ‘Das “Präskript” des Res Gestae Divi Augusti’, Historia 27 (1978), 241–6Google Scholar; Ramage, op. cit. (n. 1), 13–15.

⁸⁵ RG 13: ‘cum per totum imperium populi Romani terra marique esset parta victoriis pax’. The terminology was consciously evoked in Nero's coinage (BMC Imp. i, p. 214 = Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gains, Claudius and Nero, no. 53; cf. Griffin, M. T., Nero (1985), 122Google Scholar). Momigliano, A., ‘Terra marique’, JRS 32 (1942), 53–64Google Scholar, esp. 64 = Secundo contributo alla storia degli studi classici (1960), 444–6, argues that ‘the words are repeated so solemnly that one is inclined to believe that they were already traditional’. The formula is now paralleled in a dedication to Pompey from Ilium (AÉ 1990.940: . I am grateful to Jane Bellemore for the latter reference.

⁸⁶ ‘ter me principe senatus claudendum esse censuit’ (‘the Senate voted its closure three times during my principate’).

⁸⁷ Dio 54.36.2: (‘it was decreed that the temple of Ianus Geminus (which was open) should be closed, since the wars had ceased; it was not, however, closed…’). On the complex question of the triple vote see Syme, R., ‘Problems about Janus’, AJP 100 (1979), 188–212Google Scholar = Roman Papers iii (1984), 1179–97 (discussed and modified by Herbert-Brown, op. cit. (n. 40), 185–96), where the possibilities of a third closure are exhaustively canvassed. The proposed closure of 11 B.C. is, however, glossed over (1189 fin.) with a statement that the decree was ‘annulled’. Perhaps so, but the Senate had voted the closure, and the vote, not the closure, is what the Res Gestae records. If the temple had in fact been closed three times, Augustus would surely have been explicit. As it is, he records the senatorial vote, and induces his readers to believe (wrongly) that all the closures were implemented. Of other sources Suet., , Aug. 22.1Google Scholar (‘ter clusit’) is contracted and misleading; and the purported quotation of Tacitus in Orosius (7.3.7 = Tac., Hist. F 4 (OCT)) remains an enigma — and in its omission of Nero's closure demonstrably inaccurate.

⁸⁸ Apul., , De mundo 6.30Google Scholar: ‘per quod Gallicum <sinum?> atque Gaditanas Columnas circumvectus Oceanus orbis nostri metas includit’; cf. Val. Max. 3.2.23: ‘C. Caesar non contentus opera sua litoribus Oceani claudere Britannicae insulae caelestis iniecit manus’ (‘not content to close his achievements at the shores of the Ocean, C. Caesar laid his divine hands on the island of Britain’); Sen., Oed. 504.

⁸⁹ Strab. 2.1.14 (72) 3,000 stades from the borders of the inhabited world; cf. 2.2.2 (95); 2.5.7 (2.5.35 (132); 17.3.1 (825).

⁹⁰ Diod. 6.1.4 = FGrH 63 F 2; Winiarczyk T 3. Arabia Felix is also reminiscent of Alexander's last plans: Aristobulus' delineation of the motives for conquest and the abundance of spices (FGrH 139 F 55 = Arr. 7.20.2) could almost have inspired Strabo's explanation of the mission of Aelius Gallus (Strab. 16.4.22 (780); cf. Marek, C., ‘Die Expedition des Aelius Gallus nach Arabien’, Chiron 23 (1993), 121–56Google Scholar, esp. 125 ff.).

⁹¹ RG 26.5: ‘in fines Sabaeorum processit exercitus ad oppidum Mariba.’ Cf. Pliny, , NH 6.160Google Scholar; Strab. 16.4.24 (782); von Wissmann, H., ‘Die Geschichte des Sabäerreiches und der Feldzug des Aelius Gallus’, ANRW II 9.1 (1976), 308–544Google Scholar, esp. 313–15, 396–8; Marek, op. cit. (n. 90), 142–5. Educated readers of the Res Gestae might recall Artemidorus' description of the Sabaean kingdom, which gave a vivid description of its capital, ‘Mariaba’ (Strab. 16.4.19(778)).

⁹² RG 31.1: ‘ad me ex India regum legationes saepe missae sunt, non visae ante id tempus apud quemquam Romanorum ducum’ (‘embassies from kings in India were often sent to me; before that time they had not been seen before any Roman commander’).

⁹³ Dio 54.9.8–10 (see above, n. 16); Strab. 15.1.73 (719–20), citing the eye-witness, Nicolaus of Damascus; cf. Suet., , Aug. 21.3Google Scholar; Flor. 2.34; Aur. Viet., , Caes. 1.7Google Scholar; Epit. de Caes. 1.9; Eutrop. 7.10.

⁹⁴ Oros. 6.21.19–20: ‘Meanwhile Caesar was at Tarraco, a city of Nearer Spain, when envoys from the Indians and Scythians, who had traversed the entire world, finally found him there, at a point beyond which they could not search; and they reflected upon Caesar the glory of Alexander the Great; for, just as an embassy of Spaniards and Gauls approached Alexander at Babylon, in the centre of the Eastern world, in search of peace, so in Spain, in the furthest extremity of the West, Caesar received the entreaties of the Indians of the East and the Scythians of the North together with the gifts proper to their nations.’ On this passage see briefly Brunt, op. cit. (n. 2), 436. For the Western peoples who approached Alexander in 323 see Diod. 17.1.13.1–4; Justin 12.13.1–2; Arr. 7.15.4–6 with Bosworth, op. cit. (n. 22), 83–93.

⁹⁵ RG 31.2: ‘Sarmatarum qui sunt citra flumen Tanaim et ultra reges.’

⁹⁶ For the geographical theory see Bosworth, HCA, op. cit. (n. 7), i, 377–8; ii, 15, 105–7. According to Curtius (7.6.12; 8.1.7) Alexander had commissioned an envoy to follow the Tanais and make contact with the European Scyths.

⁹⁷ RG 31. 2: ‘Albanorumque rex et Hiberorum et Medorum’. On the Median monarchs see RG 33. Here there is conscious emulation of Pompey, who boasted of his subjugation of the Iberians and Albanians (Pliny, , NH 7.98Google Scholar) and explicitly names the monarchs of Iberia and Media (Diod. 40.4).

⁹⁸ Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.22.22Google Scholar = FGrH 63 F 23; Winiarczyk T 64A: ‘reges principesve populorum hospitio sibi et amicitia copulabat…iubebat sibi fanum creari hospitis sui nomine, quasi ut posset amicitiae ac foederis memoria conservari.’

⁹⁹ RG 32. 2: ‘non bello superatus sed amicitiam nostram per liberorum suorum pignora petens’; cf. 33: ‘by means of the embassies they sent the leading men of those nations received the kings they requested’ (‘per legatos principes earum gentium reges petitos acceperunt’). For the historical facts see Strab. 16.1.28 (748–9); Jos., , Af 18.39–42Google Scholar; Justin 42.5.12 with Brunt, op. cit. (n. 2), 462–4; Syme, , Roman Papers iii, 1097–8Google Scholar (on Vell. 2.94.4).

¹⁰⁰ Lactant., , Div. inst. 1.11.45Google Scholar = FGrH 63 F 24; Winiarczyk T 69A.

¹⁰¹ RG 5.2: ‘quam ita administravi, ut intra dies paucos metu et periculo praesenti civitatem universam liberarem impensa et cura mea’ (‘which I so administered that within a few days I freed the entire state from fear and present danger at my expense and through my diligence’). The terminology of liberation is interesting; it recurs in the Res Gestae only at 1.1, where Augustus commemorates his liberation of the state ‘from the tyranny of a faction’. In the later passage Rome is liberated from the tyranny of famine, and the benefaction is underscored in the most telling way. See also Ramage, op. cit. (n. 1), 69–70.

¹⁰² Degrassi, , ILLRP 319Google Scholar. Cf. Gagé, J., Res Gestae Divi Augusti ² (1950), 29–30Google Scholar, and on the elogia in general Brunt, P. A. and Moore, J. M., Res Gestae Divi Augusti (1967), 4–5Google Scholar; Ramage, op. cit. (n. 1), 135–7 with bibliographical review.

¹⁰³ Degrassi, , ILLRP 453–4Google Scholar; cf. Gagé, op. cit. (n. 102), 30 n. 1.

¹⁰⁴ Livy 38.56.5–6. Livy's doubts about the speech have been generally shared by modern writers; cf. Münzer, , RE iiA. 1404Google Scholar; Scullard, H. H., Roman Politics 220–150 BC (1951), 282Google Scholar; Fraccaro, P., Opuscula (1956), i.325–8Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Livy 38.56.10: ‘For it is just this conduct that Tiberius Gracchus complains of, that the tribunician power has been undermined by a private citizen’ (‘haec enim ipsa Ti. Gracchus queritur dissolutam esse a privato tribuniciam potestatem’).

¹⁰⁶ 38.56.12: ‘castigatum enim quondam ab eo populum ait, quod eum perpetuum consulem et dictatorem vellet facere.’

¹⁰⁷ Val. Max. 4.1.6: ‘They wished to confer on him a consulship which would continue all the years of his life and a perpetual dictatorship; but he permitted none of these offices to be given him by plebiscite or voted by decree of the Senate, and in refusing the honours he displayed excellence almost as great as that which he had shown in earning them.’

¹⁰⁸ RG 5.1: ‘dictaturam et apsenti et praesenti mihi delatam et a populo et a senatu…non recepi.’ 5.3: ‘consulatum quoque tum annuum et perpetuum mihi delatum non recepi.’ On the actual circumstances of 22 B.C. see Dio 54.1.3–5; Suet., Aug. 52; Vell. 2.89.5 with Woodman's commentary ad loc.

¹⁰⁹ RG 4.4: ‘eram septimum et tricensimum tribuniciae potestatis’. 6.1–2: ‘nullum magistratum contra morem maiorum delatum recepi. quae tum per me senatus geri voluit, per tribuniciam potestatem perfeci’. On Augustus' use of the tribunician power see now Griffin, M., ‘Urbs Roma, plebs and princeps’, in Alexander, L. (ed.), Images of Empire (1991), 19–46, esp. 24–32Google Scholar. I do not deny that Augustus' use of the tribunician power was profoundly non-popularis. However, that does not preclude the implicit reference to Africanus which I am proposing. Augustus was suggesting that (unlike Africanus) he did not oppose the power of the people's representatives; instead he assumed it himself and transmuted it for good.

¹¹⁰ See Yavetz, op. cit. (n. 81), 13: ‘written propaganda addressed to the masses would have to be short, like slogans on coins.’