Fulvia 113

vol. VII p.281-284

note: where I have written ‘ostracised’, it might be better to read ‘proscribed’ instead. the german here is geächteten.

113) Fulvia

She was the daughter of M. Fulvius Bambalio nr. 40 and was first married to P. Clodius Pulcher, the tribune of 696 = 58 and Cicero’s enemy. If Cicero’s statement about Antony Phil. II 48: Intimus erat in tribunat Clodio ….. cuius etiam domi iam tum quiddam molitus est. Quid dicam, ipse optime intellegit, <10> is referring to an affair between Clodius’ wife and her later third husband, then Fulvia bust have already been married in 696 = 58; you can’t go much deeper here, because she bore two children to Clodius, who was killed at the beginning of 702 = 52 (see vol. III p.2886 nr. 390 and vol. IV p.88 nr. 49). The marriage (cf. further Cic. Phil. II 11. Suet. Aug. 62. Plut. Ant. 10, 2) was a very tender one (Cic. Mil. 28. 55. Val. Max. III 5, 3), <20> and Fulvia’s mourning at her husband’s funeral (Ascon. Mil. 28, 19) and at the trial against his murderer (ibid. 35, 21) left a profound impact because of this. All of Cicero’s claims are surely slander. In her second marriage, Fulvia married C. Scribonius Curio, the tribune of 704 = 50; <30> the only proper evidence for this is Cic. Phil. II 11 of Clodius: Cuius quidem tibi fatum sicut C. Curioni manet, quoniam id domi tuae est, quod fuit illorum utrique fatale (cf. 113 and V 11 without the name Curio, and for a model of the claims about Cornelia, Pompey’s wife, see vol. IV p.1597, 25). Since Curio left Rome before the end of his year as tribune, and fell in Africa in the middle of the following year, he can only have lived together with Fulvia for a short time; but she also bore this husband a son, <40> who, as a party member of her third husband, was involved in his downfall (Dio LI 2, 5). Fulvia married this third husband, Mark Antony, before the year 709 = 45; this is shown by the famous story in which he surprises her at his return from Gaul - a story which is used very differently by ancient reports (Cic. Phil. II 77. Plut. Ant. 10, 2f.) and by modern editors (cf. eg. Gardthausen Augustus I 26 with Seeck Kaiser Augustus 24f.). <50> The historical role of Fulvia begins with that of her husband following Caesar’s death, though it must be noted that Cicero knows of reasonably little slander to say against her in the Philippics. His main accusation is that of greed (II 113. VI 4. XIII 18) and of strong participation in flourishing trade with the forged Acta Caesaris; but the general claim V 11: Mulier sibi felicior quam viris (see above) auctionem provinciarum regnorumque faciebat, <60> is based on one single case we actually know: that of Deiotarus (II 95; ad Att. XIV 12, 1); even the fact that Sex. Clodius’ return from exile (see vol. IV p.66, 14ff.) was done at her request is only an assumption made by Drumann (G.R.² I 80). In autumn 710 = 44, Fulvia accompanied Antony to Brundisium, <page break 281/282> and was there when the mutinying centurions were killed (Cic. Phil. III 4. V 22. XIII 18. Dio XLV 13, 2. 35, 3). This coincidental circumstance was used to show her to be cruel (XIII 18), and the fact that she ever journeyed with her husband was used to criticise them both (V 22), despite it being only an all too justified act of caution. For, at the end of the year and in the first months of the following, 711 = 43, as Antony’s position at Mutina was becoming worse and worse, <10> Fulvia saw that she would be a victim of the worst persecution in Rome (Cic. Phil. XII 2. Nep. Att. 9, 2. Appian. b. c. III 211f. 242) and found active support from virtually only Atticus, who was remaining neutral (Nep. Att. 9, 2-7). Fulvia’s part in the triumvirs’ proscriptions is usually brought up, on the basis of Dio XLVII 8, 2: καὶ ἥ γε Φουλουία πολλοὺς καὶ αὐτὴ καὶ κατ’ ἔχθραν καὶ διὰ χρήματα καὶ ἔστιν οὕς οὐδὲ γιγνωσκομένους ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐθανάτωσεν⋅ ἑνὸς γοῦν τινος κεφαλὴν ἰδὼν εἶπεν ὅτι τοῦτον οὐκ ἐπιστάμην. <20> According to Appian. IV 124, Rufus owned a pretty house which Fulvia wanted to acquire, since it joined on to one of her properties; the owner hadn’t wanted to sell it to her, and was then ostracised, even though afterwards he even offered it to her as a gift; when his head was brought to Antony, the triumvir said that it was nothing to do with him, and had the head brought to Fulvia, <30> who set it up - instead of in the forum - in this house. Without any mention of Fulvia and her motives, Val. Max. IX 5, 4 tells of Antony talking about the ostracised senator Caesetius Rufus, saying that he didn’t know this man. It is, therefore, Dio’s entirely general depiction, emphasising every single part of the story, spun out of one particular event, which was handed down to us in no way matching up to what actually happened. <40> The description of Fulvia’s insane ill-treatment of Cicero’s head (Dio 3f.), which was based on that, creates its own downfall through its exaggerations and lack of any parallel-report (cf. eg. Appian. IV 80f. Plut. Cic. 49, 1). Later, when the triumvirs demanded a special contribution for the war against Caesar’s murderers from 1400 rich women, those affected begged the women married to the triumvirs for help, but only Octavia, Octavian’s sister, <50> and Iulia, Antony’s mother, helped them out, whereas Fulvia ignored them (Appian. IV 136f.); her behaviour wasn’t much out of character. If you look at it from the perspective that Antony left Rome first to wage war against Caesar’s murderers, and then to arrange affairs in the east, his wife was naturally the main spokesperson for his interests in the capital city. From the year 712 = 42, for the most part of which Octavian was also away, nothing is reported about her; <60> however, Dio XLVII 4, 1-6 speaks about her in a lot more detail on 1st January 713 = 41, when her youngest brother-in-law L. Antonius both took on a consulship and celebrated a triumph over one of the Alpine peoples (cf. vol. I p.2587ff.). Since Plut. Ant. 30, 1 also says that Fulvia and L. Antonius were on the same side at the beginning of the conflict, <page break 282/283> it would be correct to say that Fulvia first opposed Lucius’ rather unjustified demand after the triumph, but that in the end she gave in. Everything else has been spun out from this one fact, and in order to properly appreciate Dio’s account (e.g.: αὐτὴ ἡ Φουλουία τὴν πανήγυριν ὑπηρέτῃ ἐκείνῳ χρωμένη ποιεῖν ἔδοξεν), we have to remember the mocking speeches and verse which came about at that time, after the triumphs, <10> about Caesar, the triumvirs, and the generals (cf. Suet. Caes. 49. 51. 80; Aug. 70. Vell. II 67. Gell. XV 4, 3); Dio also falls back on these kinds of sources here, and the fact that the Antony’s followers themselves occasionally allowed themselves a joke about Fulvia’s expenses is shown by Suet. gramm. 29. Above all, then, her name is connected with that of the Perusine War, which she and L. Antonius sparked after Octavian’s return in the year 714 = 40. Here, the only sources that should be brought up are those which deal with their own personal part in the matter: <20> at the beginning, they both kept calm (Dio XLVIII 5, 1); then Octavian was annoyed by the remarks which Fulvia had made in the interests of her daughter who was married to him in her first marriage, and broke up the relationship again, which had never actually been fully implemented in the first place (ibid. 3). According to Dio, Fulvia and Lucius then acted together against Octavian; they made use of the difficulties brought up in carrying out the land distributions (ibid. 4); <30> they placed themselves at the front of the robbed and unsatisfied Italian people (6, 4-7, 1); they rejected all of Octavian’s requests for peace (10, 1f.) and took hold of Praeneste, where Fulvia acted completely as a female ruler (ibid. 3f.). According to Appian’s account, Fulvia was likely ready to stand up for her husband’s soldiers over the land distributions, and also called upon their protection (V 54. 56); however, to begin with she wanted nothing to do with the fact that Lucius was helping out the Italians against Octavian, <40> and she was first willing to change her mind when her jealousy was set alight, and a war in Italy would have been the surest way for her to be able to break Antony apart from Cleopatra, and bring him back to her (75); when Lucius was on his way to Praeneste, she also tried to find refuge with Lepidus (82). The official historiography, as told by Livy, does however portray Fulvia as the driving force and Lucius as her tool (Liv. ep. CXXV. Vell. II 74, 3. Flor. II 16, 2. Oros. VI 18, 17f. Plut. Ant. 28, 1. 30, 2f.); <50> this story also contains the part about the masculine woman, which was taken further by Dio 10, 4, who issued commands to the soldiers while girdled with a sword (Vell. Flor.); however, the contradictory main accounts mean that Fulvia’s actual part in the events cannot be seen so easily (cf. also Drumann-Groebe G.R. I² 474 and the rest of an entirely different account of the reasons for the Perusine War in Suet. Aug. 15). <60> During the war itself, she very keenly pursued relief for Lucius who was trapped in Perusia (Appian. V 130f.). The inscriptions from slingshots the Perusine War directed against Fulvia reveal the opinion of Octavian’s side (Ephem. epigr. VI 54-56. 65 = CIL XI 6721, 3-5. 14); <page break 283/284> the dirty epigram, which Martial. XI 20, 3-8 hands down to us as being written by Octavian himself, and which Gardthausen (Augustus I 196. II 93) used as a completely valid historical source, is on par with these crude jokes from the soldiers. The state of Perusia at the end of february 714 = 40 (cf. the chronology of this year in Kromayer Herm. XXIX 562) seems not to have diminished Fulvia’s reputation, since, undisturbed by the enemy and with an honourable escort on land and on sea, <10> she journeyed across Puteoli and Brundisium to the east with Antony’s children (Appian. V 210f. Dio 15, 1. Vell. II 76, 2, cf. Liv. Oros. Plut.). In Athens, she met up with her husband (Appian. V 217. Dio 27, 4); although he went to Italy, she stayed back in Sikyon on account of illness, and died here around the middle of the year, according to the universal and indeed correct view, <20> she was hurt just as badly by his betrayal as his accusations against her taking part in politics (Appian. V 230. 249f. 266. Dio 28, 2f. Liv. ep. CXXVII. Plut.). She died at the right time for Antony; because of this, nobody looked out for her reputation, which had been attacked the most at that time. Also, the two sons she had born to Antony found a sad end, which means that they could do nothing for her legacy (see vol. I p.2584 nr. 22 and p.2614 nr. 32). <30> She was the first wife of a ruler who felt and behaved as if she was; because that was something rather unheard of for the Romans at the time, they took very grave offence to it, and more modern scholars haven’t improved the ancients’ judgement of her, but have instead only made it more harsh, above all Drumann (I² 288ff. and also II² 310ff.), and following him, without reviewing his material, Schiller (Geschichte der röm. Kaiserzeit I 79), Gardthausen (Augustus I 195f. and elsewhere), Helbig (Monum. dei Lincei I 583f.) and Seeck (Kaiser Augustus 63 and elsewhere). <40> Perhaps the bard knew her true nature better than our modern historians (cf. Shakespeare Antony and Cleopatra I 2 and II 2). Fulvia also seems to be Rome’s first female ruler in the fact that her picture was put on coins, on Roman ones as well as those of the Phrygian city Eumeneia, which was named Fulvia to honour her (cf. the coins in Bernoulli Röm. Ikonogr. I 211. Gardthausen loc. cit. II 92f. Helbig loc. cit. Taf. 2; on this, Imhoof-Blumer Kleinasiat. Münz. [Vienna 1901] I 231); <50> people have often wanted to attribute busts to Fulvia on the basis of her image on the coins, like Helbig in the detailed explanation of a recently found bust (Monumenti dei Lincei I 573-590 with two panels) and Seeck (Kaiser Augustus 22), and another of the Jacobsen collection in Copenhagen without further basis (cf. on the other hand Arndt Griech. u. röm. Porträts 64), however, these designations are very uncertain. <60>

[Münzer.]

This article is referenced by: P. Clodius Pulcher (48), P. Clodius Pulcher (49), Pinaria (29)