Catamites.

[Mosquito]

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.

 

Noone say that you are condemning him for that. I just said - basing on our earlier discussions - that you judged him on the ground of roman moral values.

[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.

Noone say that you are condemning him for that. I just said - basing on our earlier discussions - that you judged him on the ground of roman moral values.

 

Fair enough.

 

BTW, is there an historical source that denies that Octavian and Caesar had an affair? Not that that is compelling, to be sure, but one would think that someone might have attempted to present Octavian as a different sort of fellow after such charges had been leveled. Some suspect that Caesar's womanizing was a response to the charges often leveled at him (e.g., the wit who greeted Pompey and Caesar as "King" and "Queen"). Similarly, when Caesar charged Cato with an un-Stoic fondness for the sauce (in his Anti-Cato), Cicero responded that the pamphlet was "impudent rubbish". So, where are the denials?

[Ursus]

Like Augusta I really can't get emotionally invested in this thread, and for the same reasons.

 

If they slept together I hope it was good for the both of them. Maybe Octavian starting referring to Caesar as a god after a particularly satisfying bout.

[Nephele]

Like Augusta I really can't get emotionally invested in this thread, and for the same reasons.

 

If they slept together I hope it was good for the both of them. Maybe Octavian starting referring to Caesar as a god after a particularly satisfying bout.

 

 

Made me laugh! This thread needed a bit of lightening up. And, honestly, I can't get too worked up over who was doing whom, either. Not in the context of historical discussion, at least, although for a costume drama such as HBO's Rome it may add a bit of spice. But I appreciated MPC's differentiation between condemnation and taunting and, in that context, I can see the significance.

 

-- Nephele

[Primus Pilus]

BTW, is there an historical source that denies that Octavian and Caesar had an affair? Not that that is compelling, to be sure, but one would think that someone might have attempted to present Octavian as a different sort of fellow after such charges had been leveled.

 

Not that I'm aware, all we seem to have is Suetonius' recollection/reporting of Antony's accusations and not the actual source material itself. Since Antony's record doesn't survive we have no idea which document, letter or verbal source that Suetonius got it from. True or not, considering it's lack of "press", the implication would be that the average Roman didn't care all that much. I'm inclined to think that most folks thought it to be a rather uneventful piece of political taunting, but I'm absolutely sure that it delighted Antony to no end.

[The Augusta]

 

BTW, is there an historical source that denies that Octavian and Caesar had an affair? Not that that is compelling, to be sure, but one would think that someone might have attempted to present Octavian as a different sort of fellow after such charges had been leveled.

 

Not that I'm aware, all we seem to have is Suetonius' recollection/reporting of Antony's accusations and not the actual source material itself. Since Antony's record doesn't survive we have no idea which document, letter or verbal source that Suetonius got it from. True or not, considering it's lack of "press", the implication would be that the average Roman didn't care all that much. I'm inclined to think that most folks thought it to be a rather uneventful piece of political taunting, but I'm absolutely sure that it delighted Antony to no end.

 

There's food for thought here too. MPC alerted us to the difference between taunting and condemnation, and there may even be a case for thinking that even in Roman times politicians and other important figures just accepted this sort of taunt and did not place that much importance on it. All we can say for sure is for Suetonius to be constantly littering his biographies with similar rumours of various men's proclivities must have meant it was a common taunt. We have no evidence of the reaction of Octavian himself to this - it might well have been a huge sort of ...'whatever'...!

[Pantagathus]

We have no evidence of the reaction of Octavian himself to this - it might well have been a huge sort of ...'whatever'...!

Kind of like the National Enquirer saying that President Bush & the first lady are getting divorced...

[M. Porcius Cato]

We have no evidence of the reaction of Octavian himself to this - it might well have been a huge sort of ...'whatever'...!

Kind of like the National Enquirer saying that President Bush & the first lady are getting divorced...

Actually, it would be Suetonius filling the role of the National Enquirer, which--like Suetonius--always puts sensationalistic charges into the mouths of others. That's why NE has never lost a libel suit.

[Gaius Octavius]

There's food for thought here too. MPC alerted us to the difference between taunting and condemnation, and there may even be a case for thinking that even in Roman times politicians and other important figures just accepted this sort of taunt and did not place that much importance on it. All we can say for sure is for Suetonius to be constantly littering his biographies with similar rumours of various men's proclivities must have meant it was a common taunt. We have no evidence of the reaction of Octavian himself to this - it might well have been a huge sort of ...'whatever'...!

 

Quite. But, then to reduce it to fact is a different thing. This is not a gossip column. May I take this opportunity to point out that it is a fact that Caesar had carnal knowledge of one of Cato's female relatives?

Come to think of it, 'a certain party' may be a descendant of CJC!

Edited March 20, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[The Augusta]

There's food for thought here too. MPC alerted us to the difference between taunting and condemnation, and there may even be a case for thinking that even in Roman times politicians and other important figures just accepted this sort of taunt and did not place that much importance on it. All we can say for sure is for Suetonius to be constantly littering his biographies with similar rumours of various men's proclivities must have meant it was a common taunt. We have no evidence of the reaction of Octavian himself to this - it might well have been a huge sort of ...'whatever'...!

 

Quite. But, then to reduce it to fact is a different thing. This is not a gossip column.

 

A fair point. But I think those of us who have posted that 'it doesn't matter' would be equally happy with the 'facts' either way. To speak personally, if there was concrete evidence that Caesar had slept with Octavian this would not influence my view of either of them one way or another. As MPC said, it is far more important that the pair of them dismantled the Republic.

[theilian]

A late interloper here, but I too am confused as to how seriously the Romans viewed these gossips and how important they were in terms of politics.

 

Apparently there were scandalous gossips concerning Clodia and Caelius, and apparently Cicero's public mockery of her left her marginalized afterwards.

 

Maybe if they were believed to be true, I guess it could be very damaging. Cicero piled up on Antony's alleged sins in 2nd philippic to destroy's his reputation. But did they really believe all that?

 

About Cicero's letter, if he heard anything about Caesar and Octavian, he'd definitely share it with Atticus, but as pointed out, we don't have all letters.

Actually, Cicero liked gossips, and I found in the letters references to among others, Lucullus' brother being cuckolded by Memmius (he implies some political purpose) , notororious Vedius Pollio maybe having relationship with Brutus' sister and 4 other ladies, somone named Ocella being caught in bed twice in a week, etc.

[Mosquito]

A late interloper here, but I too am confused as to how seriously the Romans viewed these gossips and how important they were in terms of politics.

 

Apparently there were scandalous gossips concerning Clodia and Caelius, and apparently Cicero's public mockery of her left her marginalized afterwards.

 

Maybe if they were believed to be true, I guess it could be very damaging. Cicero piled up on Antony's alleged sins in 2nd philippic to destroy's his reputation. But did they really believe all that?

 

About Cicero's letter, if he heard anything about Caesar and Octavian, he'd definitely share it with Atticus, but as pointed out, we don't have all letters.

Actually, Cicero liked gossips, and I found in the letters references to among others, Lucullus' brother being cuckolded by Memmius (he implies some political purpose) , notororious Vedius Pollio maybe having relationship with Brutus' sister and 4 other ladies, somone named Ocella being caught in bed twice in a week, etc.

 

You got a point theilian. There was hardly anything Cicero was able to hide. He was writting to Atticus about everything and demanded Atticus to write to him - even if there was nothing to write about.

All we know is that there were much more letters than we got today. It is debatable how much more, some say that few and others that 1000% more.

 

It should be also considered that Cicero's letters were first published during reign of Augustus and if there was somthing really bad about Caesar or Augustus it was surelly removed and probably destroyed.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Mosquito

[Gaius Octavius]

As MPC said, it is far more important that the pair of them dismantled the Republic.

 

Mefeels that that is a 'moot' point or it is a 'moot' point? I guess that that depends on how closed one's alleged mind is.

 

And then Caesar fathered Brutus when he was a lad.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Andrew Dalby]

It should be also considered that Cicero's letters were first published during reign of Augustus and if there was somthing really bad about Caesar or Augustus it was surelly removed and probably destroyed.

 

That's a point I hadn't considered. It's very far from positive evidence for a sexual relationship! -- but, yes, it would help to explain why the only such claim now recorded emerges so much later.

 

In response to questions raised in this thread about Suetonius's source: he makes it clear, elsewhere in the Life of Augustus, that he is able to quote Antony's correspondence. (And, at the risk of starting another dispute about Suetonius, which happens here from time to time, I'll say right now that I think Suetonius is remarkable -- unique -- among ancient biographers in the precision with which he attributes material to named sources. I believe him. As imperial archivist he clearly did have unique access to documents. How lucky we are that he managed to quote Augustus's private comments about Tiberius and Claudius!).

 

If Suetonius cites Antony, so far as I remember, it's always for disreputable claims about Augustus's private life. In one case, it's a letter from Antony to Augustus that's being cited. Why did Antony make such statements, and when, exactly, did he make them? Was it because he knew something? Was it because he wanted to undermine Augustus? Or both?

 

And how was it that Antony's correspondence survived for Suetonius to read? Why didn't Augustus destroy it? My suggestion is that this correspondence reached the Imperial archives after Augustus's death, having previously been the private property of his daughter, Antonia "Minor", mother of Claudius and grandmother of Caligula.

[The Augusta]

As MPC said, it is far more important that the pair of them dismantled the Republic.

 

Mefeels that that is a 'moot' point or it is a 'moot' point? I guess that that depends on how closed one's alleged mind is.

 

 

I cannot see that this illustrates a closed mind. I actually applaud the fact that they dismantled the Republic, MPC mourns the fact. We both agree on the agents but differ in opinion. Or is there a case for saying that neither of them did any dismantling? Caesar's and Augustus' biggest contribution to history, in other words, was not what they did in private - that was the point being made.