ASCLEPIADES

That it disagrees with 3 main sources (Cassius Dio, Appian and Suetonius) about the adoption. I don't see the disagreement in chronology. What am I missing? My understanding of Nicolaus is that Caesar named Octavian as his adopted heir in 46, but Caesar hadn't informed Octavian (probably a shrewd move on Caesar's part, as anyone who has seen King Lear could attest). Thus, when Octavian set out for Italy, he was unaware of the adoption. However, once in Italy, Caesar's will had been read, leading Octavian's parents to advise him to renounce the adoption. What exactly in Nicolaus contradicts the other three accounts? Neither do I. I rectified in my last post (#79) on this thread; please check it and comment. Thanks in advance.

A living man made the adoption. Nicolaus is the only one who says so; if you check Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Appian, you will see Marcius Philippus was still his step-father when Caesar died. [Are you still saying that a dead man can make a will, doctor?] You can check Appian's statement in a previous post (#49) on this thread. Suetonius, Divus Augustus, Cp. VIII, sec. II: "As soon as he learned that his uncle had been slain and that he was his heir, he was in doubt for some time whether to appeal to the nearest legions, but gave up the idea as hasty and premature. He did, however, return to the city and enter upon his inheritance, in spite of the doubts of his mother and the strong opposition of his stepfather, the ex-consul Marcius Philippus." [And so Nicolaus says.] Cassius Dio is even more unambiguous (Liber XLV, Cp. III, sec. I): " Now this Octavius chanced at the time that Caesar was murdered to be in Apollonia on the Ionic Gulf, ... When he learned what had happened, he was of course grieved, but did not dare to begin a revolution at once; for he had not yet heard that he had been made Caesar's son or even his heir, and moreover the first news he received was to the effect that the people were of one mind in the affair. [And so Nicolaus says. How often are we told that Suetonius and Cassius Dio may not be trusted?] Nicolaus is also wrong about the "Lybian War": (Suetonius, ibid, sec. I): "Four years later, after assuming the gown of manhood, he received military prizes at Caesar's p133African triumph, although he had taken no part in the war on account of his youth." [And so Nicolaus says!] You can also check other aseverations of Nicolaus in a previous post(#56) on this same thread. Briefly stated, I found Nicolaus unreliable. Briefly stated, HERE, I find you unreliable. I have to admit a mistake; I was confused about the African triumph; Nicolaus also stated that Augustus was not at the Lybian War, the same as the other sources. The only difference of Nicolaus with the other accounts is about the adoption; he is the only one that mentions it happening at the African triumph. Probably it would be worth to check the Greek original. I have found no other problem with its chronology. The other sources stated that the adoption was pothumous; living men make wills, but their provisions are effective only after the death of such men. No more semantics needed. The main question on the last posts has been if Octavius was or not aware of his adoption by Caesar. After all that posts, I still think Cassius Dio, Suetonius and Appian give the most parsimonius explanation, but I also think we will never be absolutely sure; it's equally possible that Octavius was aware in advance of the provisions of Caesar's will.

Aside from Nicolaus' effusive praise for young Octavian's charisma, what's the basis for thinking that Nicolaus has the chronology wrong? That it disagrees with 3 main sources (Cassius Dio, Appian and Suetonius) about the adoption..

Yes, infact Nicolaus was familiar with the Augustan party and was in good relationship with them as Herod send him as his diplomat to represent him infront of Agrippa in 14 BC and in 4 BC he represent Archelaus case to Augustus when it's was disputed which one of Herod's sons should be given the majorty of his kingdom. It's likely that him biography of Augustus was meant as a propoganda to the eastern greeks poplation. Btw it's intresting to note that before he moved to Herod court in Judean Nicolaus was the teacher of Cleoptara and Marcus Antonius children. Indeed, Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology has an extensive article about him (pg. 930-932); its commentary about his Augustus' biography is: "3. A life of Augustus. This work is lost, like the rest, with the exception of excerpta which were made from it by the command of Constantinus Porphyrogenitus. These excerpta shew that the author was not much concerned about accuracy, and that the biography was more of a eulogy than of a history. Some writers have been of opinion, that this biography formed a part of the universal history; but there seems to be no ground for this hypothesis." Honestly, I couldn't agree more.

To quote famed American philosopher, Bugs Bunny .... "Meh, it's a possibility!" Salve iterum. Titus.

A living man made the adoption. Nicolaus is the only one who says so; if you check Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Appian, you will see Marcius Philippus was still his step-father when Caesar died. You can check Appian's statement in a previous post (#49) on this thread. Suetonius, Divus Augustus, Cp. VIII, sec. II: "As soon as he learned that his uncle had been slain and that he was his heir, he was in doubt for some time whether to appeal to the nearest legions, but gave up the idea as hasty and premature. He did, however, return to the city and enter upon his inheritance, in spite of the doubts of his mother and the strong opposition of his stepfather, the ex-consul Marcius Philippus." Cassius Dio is even more unambiguous (Liber XLV, Cp. III, sec. I): " Now this Octavius chanced at the time that Caesar was murdered to be in Apollonia on the Ionic Gulf, ... When he learned what had happened, he was of course grieved, but did not dare to begin a revolution at once; for he had not yet heard that he had been made Caesar's son or even his heir, and moreover the first news he received was to the effect that the people were of one mind in the affair. Nicolaus is also wrong about the "Lybian War": (Suetonius, ibid, sec. I): "Four years later, after assuming the gown of manhood, he received military prizes at Caesar's p133African triumph, although he had taken no part in the war on account of his youth." You can also check other aseverations of Nicolaus in a previous post(#56) on this same thread. Briefly stated, I found Nicolaus unreliable.

Of course flattery can play a role, but you are quoting a part of Paterculus that really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Book II. 59 supports the practical ideology that Octavius had a vested interest as Caesar's legitimate heir. Sorry for not being clear enough, but I am quoting Nicolaus of Damascus, not Paterculus; what I meant is that Nicolaus is even more flattering that Velleius. Please check your own link.

Have you ever heard about flattering? Paterculus is nothing: " Men gave him this name in view of his claim to honor; and, scattered over islands and continents, through city and tribe, they revere him by building temples and by sacrificing to him, thus requiting him for his great virtue and acts of kindness toward themselves... To set forth the full power of this man's intelligence and virtue,... His forbears, renowned for both wealth and justice,... Octavius, at the age of about nine [twelve?] years, was an object of no little admiration to the Romans, exhibiting as he did great excellence of nature,... At Philippus' house, as if at his father's, Octavius was reared and showed great promise, already seeming to be treated with respect by his comrades, the children of highest birth... Then while all the citizens looked upon him, because of his comeliness and very evidently noble descent... He went to the temples on the regular days, but after dark on account of his youthful charm, seeing that he attracted many women by his comeliness and high lineage; though often tempted by them he seems never to have been enticed..." And we only got up to chapter five (of 30). I would think Nicolaus was trying to stress the relationship between both Gods, Divus Iulius and Divus Augustus. I don't think anybody really believes Attia was able to distort the schemes of either Caesar or Octavius; if they were almost never together and the adoption was only posthumous, it was probably because the young man was only a distant relative to the Dictator. As you rightly pointed, Octavius was Caesar's heir because the Dictator had no closer male relative; and we might add, also because Caesar died in a most timely way.

That helps indeed, gratiam habeo. But I had some problems when I was checking out your Plinian notes. On the translation by Bostock & Riley (Perseus-Tufts Classic Collection online), the titles of the referred chapters are: BOOK II. AN ACCOUNT OF THE WORLD AND THE ELEMENTS.

Their semi-domesticated wild ancestors, to be precise.

Salve, GO. Those are anything but secrets.

After PP's explanation on the distinction between "plebs" and "mob", your statements still don't make much sense; the only "upper hand" was on the side of the Emperor. The following quotation from GC Tacitus (Annales, Liber I, Cp. II) was still valid during Nero's reign and afterwards: "Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion, so that, aggrandised by revolution, they preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past."

Marcellus. No, but he certainly had something to do with the younger Marcellus in a sort of negative way. Agrippa.

Marcellus.

Antinous.

Salve iterum. Of course, Lady A. Your turn.

Salve, RI. Of course it was affected, at least as much as vice-versa. In fact, the problem is that, up to some point, it's difficult to define if we are dealing with a Romanized Hellene or a Hellenized Roman (vg, Plotinus, Porphyry, Galen, Origen, Clement, Hypatia et Cetera). This mix is the main explanation for the perennial confusion with the so-called "Byzantine" Empire; was it Roman or Greek? If you want the short answer... it was both. The topic is extensive indeed; I think this chapter should be a nice place to start with.

7.1 Students analyze the causes and effects of the vast expansion and ultimate disintegration of the Roman Empire. Study the early strengths and lasting contributions of Rome (e.g., significance of Roman citizenship; rights under Roman law; Roman art, architecture, engineering, and philosophy; preservation and transmission of Christianity) and its ultimate internal weaknesses (e.g., rise of autonomous military powers within the empire, undermining of citizenship by the growth of corruption and slavery, lack of education, and distribution of news). sue Salve,S. Even if the syntax of the California State Board of Education on that sentence is a little bit ambiguous and it probably lacks an adjective, I think it actually means something like: "The (distorted, irregular?) distribution of news was one example of the internal weaknesses of Rome (that) undermined the citizenship". If that is so, that Kafkian statement sounds more like a hypothesis than an established fact to me. You should probably check out if there is any extended version of that program to verify its intended meaning.

Lucius Junius Brutus. (The Capitoline Bronze)

Now that is an excellent question, GO. I'll go off and do a bit of digging about here, unless anyone can come up with an answer right away. Salve iterum. The closest terms I was able to find are Popellus(i) and Plebecula(e). The following is quoted from the not-always-so-egalitarian MT Cicero, Epistolae, Ad Atticum XVI , p. XLII: "Accedit illud, quod illa contionalis hirudo aerarii, misera ac ieiuna plebecula, me ab hoc Magno unice diligi putat, et hercule multa et iucunda consuetudine coniuncti inter nos sumus usque eo, ut nostri isti comissatores coniurationis barbatuli iuvenes illum in sermonibus "Cn. Ciceronem" appellent. Besides, the wretched starveling mob, the blood-sucker of the treasury, imagines me to be high in the favour of Magnus

Salve iterum. Yes, indeed! You're right. Your turn

Salve, Amici. The reported date is 13,000 years ago. Anyway, Pitts and Wickham-Jones seem to be thinking more on reindeer hunters; more of a Sami-like culture than the Inuit.

Salve, GO. Once again, we are risking Lady A blows the whistle. Anyway, nope, nein, nyet, never (in the same order).

Salve, Amici. Then, a couple of questions: - Can you give us an operative definition (or maybe a group of definitions) for "Capitalism"? - Why most historical accounts of Capitalism begin at most at the end of the Middle Ages?