Catamites.

[Primus Pilus]

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.

 

Good point AD, we sometimes seem to forget that the Antonian legacy lived on and was an integral part of imperial politics well after his actual defeat.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

I'll translate my bit of word play: "Mefeels that this is an 'arguable' point or is it an 'unarguable' point?" I believe that the Senate, the 'good beings', and dare I say, the People of Rome were as culpable as the two scoundrels mentioned.

 

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.

 

Good point AD, we sometimes seem to forget that the Antonian legacy lived on and was an integral part of imperial politics well after his actual defeat.

 

So, to sum up, the absence of proof is proof that the absence of proof is proof!

Edited March 21, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Andrew Dalby]

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.

 

I'll translate my bit of word play: "Mefeels that this is an 'arguable' point or is it an 'unarguable' point?" I believe that the Senate, the 'good beings', and dare I say, the People of Rome were as culpable as the two scoundrels mentioned.

 

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.

 

Good point AD, we sometimes seem to forget that the Antonian legacy lived on and was an integral part of imperial politics well after his actual defeat.

 

So, to sum up, the absence of proof is proof that the absence of proof is proof!

 

That's the nature of this thread, I think. For sexual relationships 2000 years ago, especially if the alleged participants wanted to keep them secret, you're not likely to get much more than an absence of proof!

[Gaius Octavius]

Isn't the Pater Arcanae a meanie?

[Mosquito]

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.

 

I think that there is no doubt that some of the letters were removed. There is really not much left of the corespondence with Caesar, especially letters to Cicero from Caesar dissapeared. In other corespondence one may find interesting gaps in years 64-63, 57 and 43. Cosindering the events which happend in this years, the lack of those letters is not astonishing.

[caldrail]

My original comment in the ex-caesar thread wasn't intended to emphasise any un-hetero relationship between Caesar and Octavian. I was merely pointing out that Caesar took Octavian under his wing in preference to his two other great-nephews, Pedeius and Penarius, both of whom got a share of his inheritance. In fact, Caesar asked Atia (octavians mum) for permission to take the young lad to war against Cato support in North Africa. She refused that time, saying he was too young, but she agreed later although at the time Octavian was ill.

 

My point was therefore to underline how close Caesar and Octavian were in that these accusations were being made in the first place. Its an oddity because Caesar was a true blue aristocrat from a landed family, whereas Octavians ancestors had far more humble origins.

 

It was also a normal practice by wealthy men to keep children as pets. No sex involved (although humans beings being what they are I dare sometimes paedophilia reared its ugly head) and when the child started getting hairy and becoming an embarrasement rather than an amusing diversion, the child would be passed on. In the case of Caesar and Octavian that obviously isn't the case because the relative ages, but it does illustrate the tactile relationships that people had in former times that would raise eyebrows in our more suspicious age.

[Andrew Dalby]

It was also a normal practice by wealthy men to keep children as pets. No sex involved (although humans beings being what they are I dare sometimes paedophilia reared its ugly head) and when the child started getting hairy and becoming an embarrasement rather than an amusing diversion, the child would be passed on.

 

There is truth in these sentences, but, I think, it is totally irrelevant to the Caesar-Octavian question. Romans thought it acceptable to use slave children in this way -- they were one's possessions; but not citizen children -- they were someone else's possessions. Most societies make very strict distinctions between who is possible sexual prey and who isn't. If you cross the line, there's a big public scandal. If Caesar had kept Octavian, child of a citizen, in the way suggested in these sentences, it would have been a big, big scandal.

[WotWotius]

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.

 

Why would there be a source circulating around that denied something that was concocted by hearsay? In the past MPC, you have shunned the use of Suetonius on the grounds of his exaggerating nature. However, now that you have found a quote that quashes Augustus' reputation - and thus feeds your lifelong ambition - Suetonius is now apparently 100% fact. As I am sure was mentioned earlier, Suetonius is probably as reliable as a tabloid newspaper

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why would there be a source circulating around that denied something that was concocted by hearsay?

Perhaps because a master of propaganda would care to protect his reputation? You do realize that people defended themselves and their friends against personal attacks. I cited an example above. It won't be hard for you to find new examples.

 

In the past MPC, you have shunned the use of Suetonius on the grounds of his exaggerating nature. However, now that you have found a quote that quashes Augustus' reputation - and thus feeds your lifelong ambition - Suetonius is now apparently 100% fact.

 

Get real. Where have I ever shunned the use of Suetonius or claimed that he is 100% fact? I've never claimed either. Nor do I particularly credit this story about Octavian and Caesar. It's possibly true, but it sounds like slander to me. Moreover, why don't actually read this thread WW instead of responding to the last post out of context. You'd see that I'm on record saying that I don't think Octavian's alleged affair with Caesar "quashes" his reputation in the slightest: Octavian's reputation as a murderer and despot is sufficient. He could have been the catamite to every centurion in the legion and it wouldn't matter to me.

[Gaius Octavius]

QUOTE(Andrew Dalby @ Mar 21 2007, 05:52 AM)

 

"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."

 

How is this 'known'? And why take Antony's word?

[caldrail]

Its worth remembering that accusations of unsavoury affairs were commonplace in roman politics. Public image was everything. An ambitious roman, much like modern americans, must appear as a benign, generous, respectable person. Mudslinging was one method of ensuring he wasn't. Grafitti, taunts, rumours, violence, and chinese whispers were standard tactics by the late republic. In a sense, the fact that these accusations were made shows the envy these men inspired in their peers.

[Andrew Dalby]

QUOTE(Andrew Dalby @ Mar 21 2007, 05:52 AM)

 

"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."

 

How is this 'known'? And why take Antony's word?

 

Question 1: what do you mean by 'this'?

Question 2: I have explained, earlier in this thread, why in my view one would be unwise to take Antony's word seriously.

[Gaius Octavius]

Dr. A.D., re question #1. Have any, aside from Suetonius, seen this correspondence between Antony and Antonia?

[Andrew Dalby]

Dr. A.D., re question #1. Have any, aside from Suetonius, seen this correspondence between Antony and Antonia?

 

Yes, I see -- sorry! -- OK, here's my best shot at an answer.

 

What's known -- and this is all -- is that Suetonius, more than once, cites letters by Antony, and says explicitly that he is doing so. The letters are not apparently all to the same recipient (I didn't mean to imply that they were addressed to Antonia, though indeed some may have been).

 

The only reason the fact is relevant to us right now is that (as PP reminded me somewhere above) at the root of this thread is a claim made by Antony, disreputable to Augustus, which Suetonius repeats very briefly in ''oratio obliqua'' (i.e. giving it no support of his own). Since, elsewhere, Suetonius relies for his report of Antony's gossip on citing Antony's letters, it seems likely to me that this detail, too, is drawn from one of Antony's letters; but this time Suetonius doesn't say so. Therefore one might alternatively argue that, this time, he had a different source.

 

The answer expected by your question, above, is no. And that's the RIGHT answer, too! No others have seen it.

 

Now, there are several possible conclusions to draw from that.

 

One is that Suetonius invented this source (and maybe lots of other sources too). Suetonius is doing biographical fiction, in fact, rather than biography. I didn't mention that possibility earlier, mainy because having read a lot of Suetonius (not just the Lives of the Caesars) I have personally been convinced that he doesn't do that. He's a fellow like me -- very much like me, since he once worked as an archivist. He really enjoyed hunting through the Imperial archives, to which he had privileged access, and finding curious details (both true and false) about people of the past whose lives and slanders were revealed there. So, mainly, I don't think that is a likely explanation. Others may, of course.

 

The other likely conclusion is that Suetonius really did read Antony's letters (or some of them). That's the conclusion I personally accept, for the reasons just given and because he does specifically say so.

 

If he did, how? Why did no one else see them? Suggestion: because they were not published, but tucked away in the Imperial archives. Since Suetonius cites A's letters to more than one recipient, that implies -- especially to a former archivist like me -- that they were there as a group: the alternative conjecture is that he made lot of lucky hits on Antony in what must have been a vast store of documents. But that alternative is possible, too. And the further alternative, that he got hold of them in some other way, can't be discounted.

 

Well, if Antony's letters were in the Imperial archives as a group, how did they get there? And since they were so disreputable to Augustus, why didn't he destroy them? Someone earlier in the thread posed a question that reminded me I had previously mused on this. My suggestion -- which appeared on this thread for the first time in human history (I think) -- but it is only a suggestion, there's no direct evidence at all -- is that Antony kept his own copies of his letters (as we know Cicero and others did), and that his personal archive was inherited by Antonia. It was then incorporated into the Imperial archive either on Antonia's death (Caligula was proud of his descent from Antony) or on Claudius's accession -- and thus escaped destruction by Augustus.

 

In this chain there are more 'ifs' than a careful historian likes; all I can say in extenuation is that the 'ifs' hang together. I think.