Hercules, Omphale, and Octavians counter-propaganda

Full text

The battle for supremacy over the Roman Empire
between Octavian and Antony was as much a
battle of words and images as it was one of men
and ships. In these primary aspects of the war,
Antony made himself vulnerable to Octavian’s
‘propaganda’ by his ‘eastern’ attitude and attire.
This has been expertly analysed, notably by Paul
Zanker. Octavian emphasised his own preference
for the west, going to great length to demonstrate
the dichotomy between his own Romanitas and
Antony’s ‘foreign’ inclinations.1In the lengthy
speech at the outset of the battle of Actium, Dio
(50.24-30) records Octavian as explicitly mention-
ing how his men should not be afraid of a man
who ‘abandoned all his ancestors’ habits of life,
has emulated all alien and barbarian customs ...
and finally has taken for himself the title of Osiris
or Dionysos ...’ (νν πντα µν τ πτρια το
βου θη κλελοιπτα, πντα δ τ λλτρια κα
βαρβαρικ ζηλωκτα ... κα τ τελευταον κα
αυτν Οσιριν κα ∆ινυσον πικεκληκτα)
(50.25.3-4). ‘Let no one’, Octavian continues,
‘count him a Roman, but rather an Egyptian, nor
call him Antony, but rather Serapeion’ (Μτ’ ον
Ρωµαον ενα τισ ατν νοµιζτω, λλ τινα
Αγπτιον, µτ’ ’Αντνιον νοµαζτω, λλ τινα
Σαραπωνα) (50.27.1).
According to various modern authors, this
‘anti-propaganda’ did not stop at comments on
Antony’s general attitude towards the east, or at
putting emphasis on his bacchic behaviour. In the
battle of images, Antony’s use of Hercules as
divine ancestor, too, was transformed, quite clev-
erly, to be of use to the later princeps. On this view,
Octavian started to mention Hercules repeatedly
sometime before Actium. But the Hercules who
figured in this early-Augustan imagery was not
the great warrior - nor the saviour who through his
great deeds had saved mankind. Instead, Octavian
put forward imagery of Hercules enslaved by
Omphale; the captured divinity in women’s cloth-
ing.2If this was indeed an image that Octavian, or
those surrounding him, consciously put forward to
discredit Antony, one cannot help but admire the
brilliance of it. Just as the Lydian queen Omphale
had emasculated the powerful Hercules, so too
the Egyptian queen Cleopatra governed the Roman
warrior, who had turned into her slave. The con-
cept fitted other counter-images perfectly. The real
danger, in this description, came from the east,
thus diffusing the awkwardness of promoting civil
war. The evidence for this ‘counterpropaganda’,
however, is not as strong as is sometimes sup-
posed. It presupposes a strong association between
Antony and Hercules, through which references
to Hercules would make people think instantly of
Antony. It also assumes that literary and artistic
references to Omphale and Hercules should be
read and seen in a propagandistic context, outside
of any socio-cultural framework, even if they fit a
clear literary pattern. Neither of these assumptions
is unproblematic.
HERCULES AND ANTONY; A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP?
The relation between Mark Antony and Hercules is
attested in ancient sources, though the evidence is
not as overwhelming as one might think. Plutarch
states that Antony ‘adopted’ himself into the
Herculean bloodline by emphasising his mythical
ancestor Anton, one of Hercules’ many sons.3
Antony apparently even groomed himself in a
way reminiscent of Herculean imagery:
Προσν δ κα µορφσ λευθριον ξωµα, κα
171
BABesch 79 (2004)
Hercules, Omphale, and Octavian’s
‘Counter-Propaganda’*
Olivier Hekster
Abstract
This article pays close attention to one aspect of the famous battle of images between Mark Antony and Octavian
in the build-up to Actium. It challenges the common assumption that the figures of Hercules and Omphale were
purposefully portrayed as Octavian ‘anti-propaganda’‚ against Mark Antony and Cleopatra, displaying the triumvir
as emasculated by the Egyptian Queen. The link between Hercules and Antony was tenuous, especially in his later
career, and there is little evidence that the mythological scene had propagandistic connotations. With this in
mind, it seems that a political reading of the images is stretching the evidence too far.

πγων τισ οκ γγενσ κα πλτοσ µετρπου
κα γρυπτησ µικτροσ δκει τοσ γραφοµνοισ
κα πλαττοµνοισ Ηρακλουσ προσποισ
µφερσ χειν το ρρενωπτν. ν δ κα λγοσ
παλαισ Ηρακλεδασ εναι τοσ ’Αντωνουσ,
π’ Αντωνοσ, παιδσ Ηρακλουσ, γεγοντασ
κα τοτον ετο τν λγον τ τε µορφ το
σµατοσ, σπερ ερηται, κα τ στολ βεβαιον.
(The finely formed beard, broad brow, and
aquiline nose lent him a powerful, masculine
look which reminded people of paintings and
statues of Hercules. Moreover, there was an
ancient tradition that the Antonii were Heraclei-
dae, being descendants of Anton, a son of
Heracles. And this tradition Antonius thought
that he confirmed, both by the shape of his
body, as has been said, and his attire) (Plut, Vit.
Ant. 4.1-3).
Appian also makes this Herculean link a focal
point in Octavian’s speech of 44 BC, which is
heavy with sarcasm:
[You] would have doubtlessly been adopted by
him, if he had known that you would accept kin-
ship with the family of Aeneas in exchange for
that of Hercules (ε δει σε δεξµενον Ανεδην
ντ Ηρακλεδουν γενσθαι) (App. B. Civ. 3.16).
Antony replied in similar style, retorting that
he was happy that Octavian agreed that being a
relative of Hercules was enough to make any man
content. But these speeches are likely to have been
Appian’s inventions - not necessarily a good base
for factual evidence.4The use of Hercules, or Anton,
as ancestor of the Antonii seems to be confirmed
through coinage. A set of aurei from 42 BC by the
moneyer Livineius Regulus is especially important.
The obverses of the coins show the heads of Antony,
Lepidus, and Octavian, whilst the reverses depict
their mythological ancestors. These are, respec-
tively, Hercules (or Anton) (fig. 1), the Vestal
Aemilia, and Aeneas carrying Anchises.5Other
coins too connect Antony to Hercules, though it
seems dubious, at least, to interpret reverses that
show a lion as having unambiguously Herculean
connotations.6These coins seem unproblematic
compared to some of the further evidence. Stephan
Ritter brings in a Ciceronian letter from the
beginning of 43 BC, which apparently mentions
‘Hercules Antonianus’, a statue of Hercules raised
by Antony.7But ‘Antonianus’ is a restoration from
‘Hercules Antianus’, which, as Ullrich Huttner
rightly points out, could equally well (if not better)
indicate a statue of the Hercules from Antium.8 A
Pompeian ringstone, signed by the famous stone-
cutter Solon, shows a Hercules-figure whose fea-
tures have been said to be Antony’s (fig. 2).9The
small size of the image, however, makes such a
positive identification extremely doubtful.
Other evidence is by no means more straight-
forward. The torso of a headless cuirassed statue
from the 1st century BC has also been brought in to
illustrate Antony’s preference for Hercules (fig. 3).
This torso was found in Iria on Naxos, and was
supposed by the excavators, Lambrinoudakis and
Gruben, originally to have had Antony’s head.10
Their argument was that the depictions on the
cuirass fitted Antony’s ideology perfectly well.
Not only does the cuirass show Hercules fighting
the Nemean lion, Dionysos, who later became so
important for Antony, is also depicted, with kan-
tharos and thyrsos-wand, accompanied by panthers.
Though far from conclusive, this first part of the
excavators’ theory is interesting enough. Yet Her-
cules and Dionysos are not the only images on the
cuirass. The punishment of Dirke figures promi-
nently as well. Though at first sight there appears
to be no place for this myth in Mark Antony’s
imagery, the excavators found a way round this.
172
Fig. 1. 42 BC Aureus
by Livineius Regulus.
British Museum inv.
RR 4255. Courtesy,
British Museum.
Fig. 2. Pompeian
ringstone. Napoli,
Museo Nazionale inv.
25218. Courtesy,
Soprintendenza per i
Beni Archeologici,
Napoli.

They argued that as the original Dirke-group was
brought to Rome from Rhodes, and as Antony
restored the power of Rhodes after the battle of
Philippi - giving them amongst other places
Naxos to rule - the depiction of the punishment
of Dirke should recall Antony’s power in the east,
and the importance he attached to Rhodos.11
Such an explanation is far too complicated for
viewers actually to have understood the message,
and the meaning of the image must remain open
to interpretation. Nor does a further argument
that the excavators put forward for identifying
the statue as Antony seem entirely convincing.
They argued that the faces of both the deities that
are depicted on the cuirass are damaged, which
might have been because they originally bore
Antony’s features. This would cohere with indi-
cations of reworkings on the statue itself, and on
a nearby inscription, which might have been part
of the pedestal.12 Neither the original faces of
Hercules and Dionysos nor the original inscrip-
tion can, however, be properly restored. To use
this torso as evidence for an important role of
Hercules in Antony’s ideological programme is
therefore circular. It is only because the images
cohere so well with the programme that is being
reconstructed that the torso is said to have been
Antony’s in the first place.
Only slightly less problematic is a type of image,
which is found on an early-imperial cameo (fig. 4),
an Antonine ostothekos from Asia Minor, and a
late-imperial bronze medallion. Depicted on all of
them are trophaea, at which a semi-nude female
figure, clearly identified as Venus, probably func-
tioning as Venus Genetrix, puts down a spear.13
Opposite her stands a young hero, clad only in a
mantle, which he carries over his left shoulder. He
is laying down a club. The presence of the club
makes an identification with Hercules feasible,
but Hans Peter Laubscher argued that the posture
of the figure is that of Hermes - specifically that
of the Hermes Andros-Farnese - and that this
Hermes-posture was not coincidental. He main-
tains that the heroic young figure must have been
Octavian, who was often alluded to as Mercury,
because the scene from which the different images
are derived is quite obviously not a standard
mythological one, and the Venus Genetrix makes
clear allusions to the Julio-Claudian family. The
club that the figure puts down then comes to
symbolise Octavian’s victory over the ‘Herculean’
Mark Antony.14
The suggestion is interesting but not convincing.
Connections between Octavian and Mercury are
mainly poetical, and need not at all imply a ‘real’
173
Fig. 3. Cuirassed statue, Iria (Naxos). Naxos,
Archaeological Museum inv. 8761. From AA 1987,
607 fig. 47.
Fig. 4. Early-imperial cameo. Paris, Louvre. Foto
Service photographique de la reunion des Musées
nationaux BJ 1866.

image of the protagonist ‘as’ the divinity. Whether
a Mercurial pose without any further divine attrib-
utes would make people recognise the divinity -
let alone Octavian as ‘represented’ by Mercury - is
open to serious debate. Furthermore, W-R. Megow
has recently suggested that the depiction of the
hero was typologically connected to Polykleitos’
Herakles, making it likely that the depicted hero,
too, must be perceived as Hercules.15 Finally, at
the time of Octavian’s final victory over Antony,
the latter had taken on a different divine role; that
of a new Dionysus.16 It is doubtful whether a club
would be the most obvious way to refer to Antony
at the time. When it is uncertain whether a depic-
tion properly calls to mind the vanquished, and
dubious whether one would instantly recognise
the victor, it is dangerous to use it as historical
evidence.17
The coins of Regulus and the passages of
Plutarch and Appian may imply that in the late
40’s BC, just about the period that Antony got
involved with Cleopatra, Antony was stressing
his mythical ancestor Hercules. That is not the
same as actual identification with the deity. Such
an identification Antony appears to have reserved
for Dionysus. Indeed, it seems that following the
tripartite division of the empire amongst the tri-
umvirs in 42 BC, he found the deity Dionysus a
very suitable paradigm. Plutarch mentions, when
talking about Antony’s entry in Ephesus in 41 BC,
that:
The city was filled with ivy and thyrsoi, with
the music of the flute, syrinx, and lyre. All wel-
comed him as Dionysus, bringer of joy, gentle
and kind (Plut. Vit. Ant. 24.3).
Eventually the Roman general even came to be
referred to as the ‘new Dionysus’, which is
attested by an Athenian inscription of 39 BC and
strengthened by provincial coins.18 Velleius
Paterculus describes how in 34 BC:
...ante novum se Liberum Patrem appellari iussis-
set, cum redimitus hederis crocotaque velatus aurea
et thyrsum tenens cothurnisque succinctus curru
velut Liber Pater vectus esset Alexandriae
([Antony] had previously given orders that he
should be called the new Liber Pater, and
indeed in a procession at Alexandria he had
impersonated Liber Pater, his head bound with
ivy wreath, his person enveloped in the saffron
robe of gold, holding in his hand the thyrsos,
wearing the buskins, and riding in the bacchic
chariot cum) (Vell. Pat. 2.82.4).
Two years later, Cassius Dio tells us, Antony had
himself depicted on statues and paintings as
Dionysus accompanied by Cleopatra as Selene.19
From Antony’s infatuation with Cleopatra on-
wards, then, Dionysus rather than Hercules became
Antony’s model. Links between Hercules and
Antony were henceforth conspicuously absent.
This should make us careful in assuming that
Herculean references were aimed at Antony.
HERCULES AND OMPHALE AS ‘PROPAGANDA’ IN
LITERATURE AND ART
Those supporting the idea of the Omphale myth
as an Augustan tool, use a passage in Plutarch’s
Life of Antony as one of the more important
pieces of evidence:
Αντνιον δ, σπερ ν τασ γραφασ ρµεν
το Ηρακλουσ τν Οµφλην φαιροσαν τ
παλον κα τν λεοντν ποδουσαν, οτω
πολλκισ Κλεοπτρα παροπλσασα (Antony
on the contrary, just like Heracles in paintings
of Omphale taking his club and donning his
lion-skin, was altogether disarmed by
Cleopatra) (Plut. Comp. Demetr. Ant. 3.3).
This passage allegedly describes Augustan imagery.
The images that Plutarch mentions are argued to
form part of the programme of anti-propaganda
by which Plutarch was influenced.20 That assump-
tion implies that Plutarch responded to contem-
porary sources. This indeed has been claimed by
Ilse Becker. She maintains that: ‘Der Vergleich
Kleopatra-Omphale bei Plutarch geht also auf die
zeitgenössischen Quellen zurück’; a claim that is
repeated even more strongly by Stefan Ritter.21
Becker’s argument, however, is not wholly con-
vincing. She bases herself on the parallels between
the passage by Plutarch and a line in Propertius
(3.11.17), which also compares Cleopatra and
Omphale. She comments how Aspasia had been
similarly equated to Omphale by Plutarch because
of her influence over Pericles (Vit. Per. 24.9). But
rather than inferring that this may therefore be
some kind of Plutarchian topos, unrelated to Pro-
pertius’ poem - that whenever Plutarch wrote
about a man with Herculean claims, his wife or
lover was easily transformed into Omphale -
Becker concludes the opposite: this is no inven-
tion by Plutarch, but a reaction to contemporary
sources. Yet Propertius also draws parallels between
Cleopatra and the other ‘overbearing’ mytholog-
ical women, Medea (line 9) and Penthesileia (line
14). Cleopatra is thus portrayed as belonging to
the group of ‘women out of place’, rather than
being specifically connected to Omphale alone.
The other women are absent from Plutarch’s text.
Nor does Propertius’ poem feature elsewhere in
Plutarch’s work. Of course, both authors could have
174

gone back independently to a common source,
formed by Octavian’s attacks on Antony, for inspi-
ration for the Cleopatra-Omphale linkage. Then
again, references that connected Cleopatra to
Omphale are conspicuously absent in the works
of other historians. Dio’s Octavian, in his great
pre-Actium speech, mentions a whole array of
deities, and places emphasis on the dangers of the
east, and on Antony’ servitude to a woman. He
is completely silent on the subject of Omphale,
nor does not he mention Hercules.22 Similarly, the
Augustan ‘anti-propaganda’ seems to have eluded
Appian and Velleius Paterculus.23 So why would
one want to see Plutarch’s statement as evidence
for such image-forming? Of course there are inher-
ent risks in arguing this point ex silentio - yet to
presume without proper evidence is at least as
dangerous.
Plutarch furthermore has his reasons to depict
Cleopatra (and Antony) quite negatively. In his Life
of Antony, which is often particularly moralistic,
the origins of the battle of Actium are described
through placing emphasis on the dichotomy be-
tween Octavia and Cleopatra, the one a good
Roman matron, the other an evil eastern queen.24
The influence of the life of Demetrios is also of
importance, with ‘the necessity of making Antonius’
eroticism correspond to that of Demetrios’ per-
haps a factor in embellishing the overt sexuality
in the relation between Antony and Cleopatra.25
The Omphale-comparison could be one of the
embellishments. The relation between Hercules
and the Lydian queen had strong erotic connota-
tions. This is clear from a late 1st-century BC car-
nelian, now in Vienna. It shows Omphale, lying
naked on the lion-skin, with Hercules sitting (and
staring) between her out-spread legs (fig. 5).26 A
papyrus from the 1st century AD even places
Omphale in the role of a brothel-keeper.27 Com-
paring Antony with the enslaved Hercules also
nicely brought the comparison to a mythical level.
It is surely of some importance that the represen-
tation of Antony’s effeminate Hercules follows on
a passage which explains how Demetrios could
leave aside his bacchic activities when going off
to war, to turn into ‘a minister of unhallowed
Ares’.28
Plutarch’s comparison need not have been influ-
enced by earlier ‘propaganda’. Antony’s infatuation
with Cleopatra was well-known, even without
Octavian’s interference, and the importance of the
queen was well-advertised.29 The popularity of the
Omphale-saga, in art as much as in other respects
of Roman life, was equally great. Plutarch was
doubtless aware of private images of Omphale
and Hercules - images that reflected the world of
otium rather than the world of politics.30 The con-
notations of the Omphale-episode were not nec-
essarily negative. Rather than emphasising the
amoral and effeminate behaviour of Hercules, his
relationship with Omphale was seen in a positive
light as the epitome of extreme passion and vital-
ity.31 There was no absolute distinction between
these positive and negative aspects. Ovid stresses
Hercules’ abasement in his 9th letter of the
Heroides, the fictional love-letters by famous
women, when Deianeira complains: ‘You are vic-
tor over the beast, but she over you’.32 Still, in his
Ars Amatoria (2.217-221) Hercules’ effeminate
behaviour is brought forward as a positive exam-
ple for others to follow.
In art, the distinction is not clear-cut either.
Kampen believes that there was a development
in the way the Omphale-myth was interpreted;
negatively in the 1st century AD, with a transition
in the second century towards a more positive
view. Her evidence, however, is not conclusive.
She mentions how in the first century most of the
visual representations show an ‘abased Hercules
and a coy or aloof Omphale’, yet the examples
brought forward show the couple looking each
other in the eye.33 More clearly, two images from
the 1st centuries BC and AD do not show any
form of degradation, but rather depict the pro-
tagonists’ faces, looking at each other in love, on
the verge of a kiss. Zanker rightly stresses how
different connotations can be simultaneously
expressed.34 That means that they are extremely
difficult to use in supporting the claim of an
Augustan anti-propaganda, which Plutarch is
claimed to have reproduced.
175
Fig. 5. 1st-century BC Carnelian. Vienna, Kunsthisto-
risch Museum inv. IX B 1364. Museum photo III
10.272.

Indeed, the image used to support the idea of
a centrally-promoted connection between Omphale
and Cleopatra is not decisive. It is transmitted
through a number of clay impressions and bowl
sections of the high-quality pottery of Perennius,
and is said to have originated on a lost Arretine
silver bowl of the early Augustan period (fig. 6).35
The scene depicted shows Hercules sitting in
woman’s clothing in a chariot drawn by centaurs,
looking back. He is followed by two girls carry-
ing a parasol and fan. Omphale sits in a different
chariot, wearing the lion skin and carrying the
club. A girl hands her an oversize drinking cup.36
Hercules and Omphale have been unequivocally
identified with Antony and Cleopatra.37 Even
more minor details in the image have been inter-
preted as political statements. Thus the ‘enor-
mous drinking cup’ which is handed to Omphale,
‘is aimed directly at Cleopatra, who was ridiculed
by Octavian and his circle for her bibulousness’.38
Of course, that is a possibility. But one should not
forget that, at least on the terra sigilata that sur-
vives, the features of the mythological figures are
not recognisably those of Mark Antony and
Cleopatra.39 Nor is bacchic imagery wholly
unsuitable for drinking bowls. The scene itself is
reminiscent of depictions of Hercules in a chariot
drawn by centaurs - depictions that often show
Bacchus accompanying Hercules, and can show
the latter holding the kantharos.40 Though the
choice for a ‘centaur-scene’ may still have been a
(very indirect) slur on Cleopatra’s drinking habits,
the fact that the queen is handed a drinking cup
follows rather naturally from the reversal of
attributes that is inherent in the Omphale-saga.
Without any direct evidence that the figures on
display refer to Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and
without any evidence that the design originated
from Augustus or the circle surrounding him, it
becomes hazardous to use the motif on the pottery
as evidence for a grand Augustan programme.
The fact that, especially for the period after join-
ing with Cleopatra, there is little evidence for the
connection between Antony and Hercules and
that this relation was never one of actual identi-
fication in the first place, should make one even
more careful in proclaiming the Omphale-episode
as yet another illustration of the battle of images.
Hercules and Omphale were a favourite motif in
art and literature of the late Republic and early
Empire. The interpretation of the episode could
be many-faceted. It should not be simply seen as
political, unless there are undeniable references to
politics of the time. There are no unambiguous
images showing Antony-Hercules and/or Cleo-
176
Fig. 6. Impressions of a lost Arretine silver bowl? Courtesy, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Reproduced with
permission © 2003 Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. All Rights Reserved.

patra-Omphale. References to Omphale and
Hercules in literature need no earlier ‘propa-
ganda’ to explain their existence. It is also very
doubtful whether the link between Hercules and
Antony was sufficiently strong to make references
to Hercules reflect on Antony. All in all, it seems
that the role of Omphale and Hercules in the bat-
tle of images is a myth - in all senses of the word.
NOTES
*My gratitude, as so often, goes to Fergus Millar for
commenting on an earlier draft of this article. Criticism
by Jas Elsner and Stephan Mols on some of the ideas
that I put forward has strengthened the argument enor-
mously. It goes without saying that all remaining errors
and inconsistencies are my own.
1P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus
(Ann Arbor 1988), 50, 52-3, 57-65 (‘Antony betrayed by
his own image’), with references.
2S. Ritter, Hercules in der römischen Kunst von den
Anfängen bis Augustus (Heidelberg 1995), 81-5, 87;
Zanker, Power of Images, 55-6; H. P. Laubscher, ‘Motive
der augusteischen Bildpropaganda’, JDAI 89 (1974),
242-59; 248-50; N. Kampen, ‘Omphale and the Instability
of Gender’, in eadem (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art. Near
East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy (Cambridge 1996), 233-46;
235; I. Becker, Das Bild der Kleopatra in der griechischen
und lateinischen Literatur (Berlin 1966), 55 n. 3. On the
Omphale myth in Rome: F. Wulff Alonso, ‘L’Histoire
d’Omphalè et d’Héraklès’, in C. Jourdain-Annequin/C.
Bonnet (eds.), IIerencontre héracléennne. Héraclès les
femmes et le feminin (Bruxelles-Rome 1996), 103-120; J.
Boardman, ‘Omphale’, LIMC 7.1, 45-52; 45-6.
3Plut. Vit. Ant. 4.1-3, 60.3; U. Huttner, ‘Marcus Antonius
und Herakles’, in Ch. Schubert/K. Brodersen (eds.),
Rom und der Griechische Osten. Festschrift für Hatto H.
Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag (Stuttgart 1995), 103-12 ; 104,
n.7; W. Derichs, Herakles. Vorbild des Herrschers in der
Antike (PhD-Köln 1950), 37-8; T.P. Wiseman, ‘Legendary
genealogies in Late-Republican Rome’, G&R 21 (1974),
153-64; 157.
4App. B. Civ. 3.19. G. K. Galinsky, The Herakles Theme.
The adaptations of the hero in literature from Homer to the
20th century (Oxford 1972), 141 completely misses the
protagonists’ irony when he states: ‘Appian (B.C. 3.16)
writes that Caesar reluctantly gave up his plan to adopt
Antonius because Antonius was unwilling to exchange
kinship with Herakles for the Julian descent from
Aeneas’. On Appian’s speeches: A. M. Gowing, The
Triumphal Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann
Arbor 1992), 65-70. Cf. E. Gabba, Appiano e la storia delle
guerre civili (Florence 1956), 155-9.
5British Museum inv. RR 4255. Crawford, RRC, no.
494.2a (= Sydenham, CRR, nos. 1103-a); LIMC, 4,
‘Herakles’, no. 994; Zanker, Power of Images, 45 fig. 34
a-b; D. R. Sear, The History and Coinage of the Roman
Imperators 49-27 BC (London 1998), 95 no. 143; Huttner,
‘Marcus Antonius und Herakles’, 105-6; Huttner,
‘Marcus Antonius und Herakles’, 105-6. There is dis-
cussion on whether the figure depicted is either Anton
or Hercules. For a short synthesis and further refer-
ences, Ritter, Hercules in der römischen Kunst, 74-5 nn.
147-52, Taf. 5.7a-b.
6Crawford, RRC, I, nos. 494.37-8 Pl. 60 (= Sydenham,
CRR, nos. 1139-40); Ritter, Hercules in der römischen
Kunst, 75, Taf 5.8-9. Reverses with lions: Sear, History
and Coinage of the Roman Imperators, 83 no. 122, 85 no.
126, and for a lion holding a sword: 168 no. 266 (=
Crawford, RRC, I, no. 533.1).
7Cic. Epist. frg. 4.7 ( = Non. 437 L); Ritter, Hercules in der
römischen Kunst, 71; O. Weippert, Alexander-Imitatio und
römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit (Augsburg 1972),
198 n.1 with references; R. Schilling, ‘Der römische
Hercules und die Religionsreform des Augustus’, in G.
Binder (ed.), Saeculum Augustum II Religion und Literatur
(Darmstadt 1988), 108-42; 118-9.
8Cf. Plin. HN 3.81 for the use of ‘Antianus’ as an adjec-
tive from Antium; Huttner, ‘Marcus Antonius und
Herakles’, 109. Huttner also propones a possible link to
the gens Antia (109 n. 57).
9Napoli, Museo Nazionale, inv. 25218; Ritter, Hercules in
der römischen Kunst, 79-80; Palagia, ‘Imitation of Hercules’,
144; Zanker, Power of Images, 45 fig. 35; M.-L. Vollenweider,
Die Steinschneidekunst und ihre Künstler in spätrepub-
likanischer und augusteischer Zeit (Baden-Baden 1966),
47-55; Laubscher, ‘Motive der augusteischen Bildpro-
paganda’, 251-2.
10 Naxos, Arch. Mus. Inv. 8761; V. Lambrinoudakis/ G.
Gruben, ‘Das Neuentdeckte Heiligtum von Iria auf
Naxos. Zur Baugeschichte des 2. Tempels’, AA (1987),
604-14; 608-14, Abb. 47-49; Ritter, Hercules in der römis-
chen Kunst, 77-8; fig. 6.1.
11 V. Lambrinoudakis, ‘Neues zur Ikonogafie des Dirke’,
in H. U. Cain et. al. (eds.) Festschrift für Nikolaus Himmel-
mann (Mainz am Rhein 1989), 341-50; 343-7.
12 Lambrinoudakis, ‘Neues zur Ikonografie der Dirke’,
341; Lambrinoudakis/Gruben, ‘Das Neuentdeckte
Heiligtum von Iria’, 610.
13 Laubscher, ‘Motive der augusteischen Bildpropaganda’,
241 n.1, 244 nn. 8-9, 246 n. 14, Abb. 3-6.
14 Ibidem, 247 n. 20, 248, 250: ‘der ins Mythische trans-
portierte ... allgemeine Triumph über Marc Anton’.
15 W.-R. Megow, ‘Zu einigen Kameen späthellenistischer
und frühaugusteischer Zeit’, JdI 100 (1985), 445-96; 484-
5.
16 See further infra p. 6.
17 Though the suggestion of Huttner, ‘Marcus Antonius
und Herakles’, 106, that it depicts a joint victory mon-
ument of the two triumvirs for the battle of Philippi in
BC 42 has some appeal, and would complement
Livineius Regulus’ aurei well, still has some appeal.
18 IG II2, 1043, 22-4. Cf. Dio, 48.39.2: ∆ινυσοσ νοσ. In the
same period (39/8 BC) Ephesian cistophoroi depict
Antony with bacchic attributes; Sydenham, CRR, nos.
1197-8 Pl. 29; Sear, History and Coinage of the Roman
Imperators, 165 nos. 262-3; W. Trillmich,
‘Münzpropaganda’, in AA.VV., Kaiser Augustus und die
verlorene Republik (Berlin 1988), 474-528; 481, 503, nos.
311-2.
19 Dio, 50.5.3. These lines also mention Antony and
Cleopatra presenting themselves as Osiris and Isis.
20 Ritter, Hercules in der römischen Kunst, 81-5; Zanker,
Power of Images, 55-6; Weippert, Alexander-Imitatio, 198-
9; N. Kampen, ‘Omphale and the Instability of Gender’,
in eadem (ed.), Sexuality in Ancient Art. Near East, Egypt,
Greece, and Italy (Cambridge 1996), 233-46; 235.
21 I. Becker, Das Bild der Kleopatra in der griechischen und
lateinischen Literatur (Berlin 1966), 55 n. 3; Ritter,
Hercules in der römischen Kunst, 81: ‘mit Sicherheit auf
zeitgenössische Quellen zurückgreifend’. The only sup-
177

port for the ‘certainty’ is the above-quoted statement
by Becker. Plutarch did use some contemporary mate-
rial for his life of Antony, and the first half of the work
shows obvious influences from Cic. Phil. II. (not men-
tioned by Ritter), but for the second half of the work
there is not such a clear source. Possibly Plutarch drew
on material transmitted orally; C. B. R. Pelling, ‘Plutarch’s
Method of Work in the Roman Lives’, in B. Scardigli,
Essays on Plutrach’s Lives (Oxford 1995), 265-312; 297,
300.
22 Dio, 50.24.3; 50.24.7: γυναικ ντ’ νδρσ δουλεοντεσ;
50.25.1-4; 50.27.1-5. Cf. Dio, 49.34.1; 50.5.1. Whether Dio
did or did not use original Octavianic (propagandistic)
sources is disputed. F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio
(Oxford 1964), 85-92 argues for multiple sources, but
also stresses Dio’s own contribution. For an explicit
comment on the speeches: M. Reinhold, From Republic
to Principate. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s
Roman History. Book 49-52 (36-29 B.C.) (Atlanta 1988),
84: ‘Dio drew the contents of these two speeches skil-
fully (whether directly or indirectly) from the polemi-
cal literature of the 40s and 30s’. If one assumes that
Dio followed Octavian’s propaganda directly, the
absence of Omphale is all the more noticeable.
23 On the importance Appian places on Cleopatra’s neg-
ative influence on Antony in general, see O.Hekster/
T.Kaizer, ‘Mark Antony and the raid on Palmyra: reflec-
tions on Appian, Bella Civilia 5.9’, Latomus (forthcom-
ing).
24 C. B. R. Pelling, ‘Plutarch’s Adaptation of his Source-
Material’, in Scardigli, Essays on Plutrach’s Lives, 125-54;
148. Pelling (148 n. 61) notes that this dichotomy ‘seems
to be Plutarch’s own elaboration’.
25 F.E. Brenk, ‘Plutarch’s life ‘Markos Antonios’: A
Literary and Cultural Study’, ANRW II.33.6 (1992),
4347-4469; 4381.
26 Vienna, Kunsthistorisch Museum, IX B1364; LIMC 7
‘Omphale’, no. 34. Cf. also a carnelian from the same
period with a similar composition, showing actual cop-
ulation; Vienna, Kunsthistorisch Museum, IX B1365,
LIMC 4 ‘Herakles’, no. 1558.
27 P. Oxy. 53, 3700; V. N. Jarcho, ‘Zu dem neuen
Mimosfragment (P. Oxy. 53, 3700)’, ZPE 70 (1987), 32-4;
33-4.
28 Plut. Comp. Demetr. Ant. 3.2-3. Cf. also Athenaeus VI.
253d-f. This hymn on Demetrios, transmitted by
Plutarch’s near-contemporary Athenaeus, gives an indi-
cation on the familiarity of the Roman public with
Demetrios’ divine associations. Hercules and Omphale
were often seen in bacchic connotations, even taking on
specific bacchic iconography; Kampen, ‘Omphale and
the Instability of Gender’, 242. This makes Plutarch’s
mythical comparison between Demetrios, who can step
out of his orgiastic revels, and Antony, who cannot,
more striking.
29 Dio, 49.41.1; Wallmann, Triumviri Rei Publicae
Constituendae, 252. Famously, Cleopatra is described as
the ‘Queen of Kings’ (CLEOPATRA REGINAE
REGUM) on a coin-type of Mark Antony; Crawford,
RRC, I, no. 543.1.
30 Ritter, Hercules in der römischen Kunst, 177. It is striking
that Ritter shows meticulously how one should not try
to interpret images of Omphale and Hercules in the
Augustan period from a purely political point of view
(171-81), but still monolithically emphasises such a
political view (81-5). Only in one footnote (85 n. 255) in
the ‘political’ passage does he refer to his own argu-
ments against a political interpretation of much of the
evidence. Ritter in fact promotes a more polyform inter-
pretation of the Omphale-myth in his later ‘Ercole e
Onfale nell’arte romana dell’eta tardo-repubblicana e
augustea’, in Jourdain-Annequin/Bonnet, Iierencontre
héracléennne, 89-102; 102.
31 P. Zanker, ‘Eine römische Matrone als Omphale’, RM
106 (1999), 119-31; 123-4.
32 Ov. Her. 9.114: tuque feri victor es, illa tui. Cf. Ov. Her.
9.53-118.
33 Kampen, ‘Omphale and he Instability of Gender’, 235-
7, 237 fig. 98 (= Naples, Mus. Naz. 6406 (299) [LIMC 7,
‘Omphale’, no. 23]).
34 Naples, Mus. Naz. 9004 (LIMC 7, ‘Omphale’, no. 14);
Vienna, Kunsthist. Mus. IX B1560 (LIMC 7, ‘Omphale’,
no. 16); Zanker, ‘Eine römische Matrone’, 124.
35 Zanker, Power of Images, 59. But see Ritter, ‘Ercole e
Onfale nell’arte romana’, 99-100, who argues that the
hypothesis of an exact prototype cannot be proved.
36 Boston, MFA, Inv. 98.870; Rome, Museo delle Terme,
Inv. 106292. There is also an example of pottery by
Tigranus showing the scene; Paris, Louvre, Inv. 436;
Ritter, Hercules in der römischen Kunst, 173 nn. 331-4. The
different images show slight variation as to the sec-
ondary figures, such as cup- and spear-bearers, but the
composition of the depiction remains essentially the
same. Ritter (173 n. 331) also uses as evidence a mould
from New York, Metropolitan Museum, Inv. 19192.21,
but cf. Boardman, ‘Omphale’, LIMC 7.1, 49 no. 36.
37 This equation originates with A. Oxé, ‘Römisch-italis-
che Beziehungen der früharretinischen Reliefgefäße’,
BJb 138 (1933), 81-102; 94-6, Taf. 14.2c-d, and is followed
(amongst others) by Zanker, Power of Images, 59-60 fig.
45a-b; Kampen, ‘Omphale and he Instability of
Gender’, 235, 236 fig. 97 a-b; J.-P. Morel, ‘Das
Handwerk in augusteischer Zeit’, in Kaiser Augustus
und die verlorene Republik, 81-92; 87, Abb. 29-30.
38 Zanker, Power of Images, 59-60.
39 Ritter, ‘Ercole e Onfale nell’arte romana’, 99 nn. 45-6 for
references and discussion.
40 LIMC 4 ‘Herakles’, no. 1430. Cf. LIMC 4 ‘Herakles’, no.
1431 (= LIMC 3 ‘Dionysos/Bacchus’, no. 246). Both
images derive from the 3rd century AD. A mosaic from
roughly the same period also shows Omphale with a
drinking cup; Madrid, Arch. Mus. 2/1943; LIMC 7,
‘Omphale’, no 39 (= LIMC 5, ‘Herakles’, no. 1741).
MERTON COLLEGE
OXFORD OX1 4JD
178