Catamites.

[Gaius Octavius]

What is the evidence that damns Caesar and Augustus?

[Andrew Dalby]

What is the evidence that damns Caesar and Augustus?

Hold on, where did this start? "Damns" them for what exactly? I've searched on "catamite" on this site and not found anything. Be more explicit, mi Octavi.

 

EDIT -- Oh, I see now. It's the ex-Caesar thread, which hadn't monopolized my attention I'm sorry to say. Well, I agree with you, Octavius. I know of no evidence of Caesar-Octavian sexual abuse. Suetonius doesn't suggest it, does he? He would have, surely, if there had been any such rumours.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[Primus Pilus]

I assume you are meaning the following sort of thing. Hardly resounding confirmation though...

 

From Suetonius Life of Augustus, 68:

In early youth he incurred the reproach of sundry shameless acts. Sextus Pompey taunted him with effeminacy; Mark Antony with having earned adoption by his uncle through unnatural relations; and Lucius, brother of Mark Antony, that after sacrificing his honour to Caesar he had given himself to Aulus Hirtius in Spain for three hundred thousand sesterces, and that he used to singe his legs with red-hot nutshells, to make the hair grow softer.

[Julius Ratus]

Suetonius also writes about Caesar being boy-toy to Nikomedes of Bithynia.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What is the evidence that Caesar ever slept with Calpurnia? What is the evidence that Octavian ever slept with Livia? In both cases, it's exactly the same as the evidence that Caesar slept with Octavian. Now, why should one be incredulous about the coupling of Caesar/Octavian but not Caesar/Calpurnia or Octavian/Livia?

 

Please, let's not pretend that the distinguishing factor in credibility is evidence--because it's not. In fact, at least Suetonius testifies to reports of Caesar and Octavian sleeping together, whereas no source mentions reports of Caesar and Calpurnia sleeping together. Why not make a stink about that?

 

I assume you are meaning the following sort of thing. Hardly resounding confirmation though...

 

What could be resounding confirmation? Octavian bearing Caesar's child??

[Gaius Octavius]

What is the evidence that damns Caesar and Augustus?

Hold on, where did this start? "Damns" them for what exactly? I've searched on "catamite" on this site and not found anything. Be more explicit, mi Octavi.

 

EDIT -- Oh, I see now. It's the ex-Caesar thread, which hadn't monopolized my attention I'm sorry to say. Well, I agree with you, Octavius. I know of no evidence of Caesar-Octavian sexual abuse. Suetonius doesn't suggest it, does he? He would have, surely, if there had been any such rumours.

 

Gaius didn't want to get himself into trouble - again; nor did he want to be off-topic in the other thread. His last attempt resulted in a 'locked' thread.

 

MPC, Gaius, wig on head, brief in hand, shall return once he is finished doing that which he is charged with.

[Primus Pilus]

I assume you are meaning the following sort of thing. Hardly resounding confirmation though...

 

What could be resounding confirmation? Octavian bearing Caesar's child??

 

That's the point. It's a rumor. It may be true, it may not, there is little for us to use as confirmation or denial. It may be a result of the political machinations of Antony or it may be truthful reporting. What I mean is that Suetonius hardly provides any detail other than the term "unnatural relations" (he actually uses the word stupro which is indicative of sexual intercourse in case anyone is not completely sure what is implied by unnatural relations), but there is no confirmation other than Antony's accusations. Obviously we are quite familiar with the enmity between Antony and Octavian.

 

While the "Queen of Bithynia" story was widely known in contemporary circles, this particular story seems to have attracted much less attention. Surely Augustan propaganda could have helped nix any lasting record, but attempts to mute such things can often have a complete reverse effect. It seems probable, considering all the rumors, that the young Octavian may have been involved in some scandalous liaisons, but the who, what, why, etc is rather difficult to pinpoint.

 

The Calpurnia argument isn't really applicable. It would not be scandalous for a man to sleep with his wife, so why would Suetonius go out of his way to suggest it. Perhaps had he said that Caesar did not or would not sleep with his wife, I'd be inclined to agree with the comparison.

[Mosquito]

Even if there was somthing between them, after Julius became demigod and Augustus became a god, noone who apreciated at least his staying in Rome would dare to claim that Caesar and Augustus were homosexualists and couple. Its different thing to report that there were such rumours widespreaded by some enemies and different to make such claim by himself - and Suetonius didnt claim that.

 

On the other hand - wouldnt Cicero write about it in his letters if there were such rumours? I dont remember reading about it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Clearly, Cicero had a negative view of homosexual behavior: just look at the abuse he hurled at Antony for his affair with Curio in the Second Phillipic. Given this stance and given Cicero's efforts to promote Octavian, one wouldn't expect Cicero to talk about an affair between Octavian and Caesar even if one existed.

[Mosquito]

Clearly, Cicero had a negative view of homosexual behavior: just look at the abuse he hurled at Antony for his affair with Curio in the Second Phillipic. Given this stance and given Cicero's efforts to promote Octavian, one wouldn't expect Cicero to talk about an affair between Octavian and Caesar even if one existed.

 

 

Even to Atticus or his brother Quintus?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Even to Atticus or his brother Quintus?

Right--why would he? What would be point of spreading gossip that he would be anxious to contain? Also, there's no reason to assume that Cicero would even know about an affair had one existed. It's not as though Cicero had that many common friends with these people.

Edited March 19, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[The Augusta]

Grrrh. It's not often that The Augusta gets angry, but this whole topic does get to me a bit. Homosexuality and bisexuality as we know them did not exist in the ancient world as such. The only reason the Octavian/Caesar rumour, Caesar/King of Bithynia rumour and Antony/Curio affair were scandals was because in all cases these men were freeborn and their rivals considered it unnatural for freeborn men to leap into bed with each other - especially he who was passive. I know that Ursus has dealt with this on another thread and he set out the evidence and argument far more eloquently than I can - and a quick re-read of his review on the Roman Sex book should offer enough explanation - a book I also have. But whenever we discuss it, forgive me if I'm paranoid, but there seems to be an undercurrent from one or two posters that if these men were indulging in sexual relations with each other, then it somehow needs to be proved wrong and people ask for evidence as if their heroes are somehow less because of it. Tosh!

 

Now, this thread began because Caldrail made a comment in the ex-Caesar thread about Caesar having an affair with Octavian, and I agreed that it could have been relevant only inasmuch as his rivals taunted him with it as being 'the only way he could get anywhere in life' sort of thing. It has no other relevance to these people. Octavian had his boy favourite Sarmentus, for instance (Plutarch) - what the hell does it matter? We will probably never have hard evidence (no pun intended) but why should we need to look for it, especially for those who cannot entertain the idea? I couldn't care less what these people did in bed - it's how they ruled the Republic or the Empire that concerns me.

 

And just a friendly word regarding the title of the thread: a catamite is a young boy/youth kept entirely for a sexual purpose. I don't think we could use this term in its purest sense for Octavian, Julius or even the King of Bithynia!

 

Sorry to rant, gents.

[Andrew Dalby]

I assume you are meaning the following sort of thing. Hardly resounding confirmation though...

 

From Suetonius Life of Augustus, 68:

In early youth he incurred the reproach of sundry shameless acts. Sextus Pompey taunted him with effeminacy; Mark Antony with having earned adoption by his uncle through unnatural relations; and Lucius, brother of Mark Antony, that after sacrificing his honour to Caesar he had given himself to Aulus Hirtius in Spain for three hundred thousand sesterces, and that he used to singe his legs with red-hot nutshells, to make the hair grow softer.

 

Well, thanks, PP. I flipped through Suetonius but missed that. It's interesting that the accusations come from Mark Antony and his brother (and Mark Antony's letters are used elsewhere in Suetonius's life of Augustus as a source of gossip). We are, of course, very lucky that Suetonius had access to this stuff at all. But Mark Antony had no reason to love Octavian and every reason to blacken his name, so, I still agree with GO that this scarcely counts as real evidence for a sexual relationship -- it's simply evidence that it's rather easy to start a smear campaign. As already said above, if Cicero says something about it, that might be more significant. If there had really been rumours of such a thing, I can't believe Cicero wouldn't have latched on to them.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Andrew Dalby

[Mosquito]

You cannot be more right Augusta. It really doesnt matter if they were homo/bi sexual or not, it doesnt make their lifes less significat in history. Considering that Alexander was bisexual and conquered the east, even if Caesar was a queen of Bithynia, it doesnt make him smaller or less genial person. Our MPC who represents strickt "catonian" point of viev may condmen Caesar or August - in the light of traditional roman social customs but in our modern times it is hard to claim that someone is "less a man" because in one or other way he is or was a gay. Can one say that Sacred Band of Thebes dont deserve our respect because were gays? Both in the times of Caesar and today, his enemies claim him to be a homosexual to show disrespect and make him smaller in our eyes.

 

 

As already said above, if Cicero says something about it, that might be more significant. If there had really been rumours of such a thing, I can't believe Cicero wouldn't have latched on to them.

 

 

There is always posibility that there were such letters but are lost. We dont have all the Cicero's corespondence.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Mosquito

[M. Porcius Cato]

For the record, I've never condemned Caesar or Octavian for their sexual tastes; I condemn them for initiating the civil wars that destroyed the republic. However, I gleefully taunt Caesar for his tastes, as I taunt him for baldness and delusions of deity. There's certainly nothing morally repugnant about baldness, but for someone as vain as Caesar, it's an embarrassment worth emphasizing to highlight that the guy was engaging in compensatory behavior.

Edited March 19, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato