How Did Augustus Die?

[Octavia]

Hey everyone. I was curious as to know how Augustus actually died. Was he poisoned by Livia or did he die of natural causes?

[Ingsoc]

Natural causes, Livia wasn't actually the wicked witch that is often shown in modern works about Augustus reign.

[Ursus]

Was he poisoned by Livia

 

Everitt makes this very claim in his bio of Augustus, but provides little proof. His theory was that Augustus silently consented to it to provide a smooth transition for Tiberius and prevent a civil war.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Was he poisoned by Livia

Everitt makes this very claim in his bio of Augustus, but provides little proof. His theory was that Augustus silently consented to it to provide a smooth transition for Tiberius and prevent a civil war.

 

How did Everitt reach this conclusion? I don't understand the reasoning. Why would civil war be averted by the appearance--but not actuality--of his natural death?

[Primus Pilus]

Was he poisoned by Livia

Everitt makes this very claim in his bio of Augustus, but provides little proof. His theory was that Augustus silently consented to it to provide a smooth transition for Tiberius and prevent a civil war.

 

How did Everitt reach this conclusion? I don't understand the reasoning. Why would civil war be averted by the appearance--but not actuality--of his natural death?

 

Unfortunately, it is exactly as Ursus described. Everitt makes the claim in his preface but never expounds upon the theory at all, nor attempts to prove it in the text of his otherwise well presented bio.

[P.Clodius]

Was he poisoned by Livia

Everitt makes this very claim in his bio of Augustus, but provides little proof. His theory was that Augustus silently consented to it to provide a smooth transition for Tiberius and prevent a civil war.

 

How did Everitt reach this conclusion? I don't understand the reasoning. Why would civil war be averted by the appearance--but not actuality--of his natural death?

 

Unfortunately, it is exactly as Ursus described. Everitt makes the claim in his preface but never expounds upon the theory at all, nor attempts to prove it in the text of his otherwise well presented bio.

Been a while since I read it but its probably from Suetonius.

[The Augusta]

Been a while since I read it but its probably from Suetonius.

 

Suetonius makes absolutely no claims whatsoever that Livia poisoned anyone at all. As the most scurrilous of all biographers and the most likely to record any rumour whatever, I find his silence crucial.

 

Augustus, as we know from Suetonius, suffered from a variety of conditions, not the least of which was 'rheumatism' and Raynaud's phenomenon (his remarks about Augustus' middle finger turning white in winter etc.) These conditions alone speak of some auto-immune process or mixed tissue disease, and living to be 75+ was no mean achievement for the times. I should imagine that like most elderly people who have lived with less than buoyant health, he would succumb very easily to virulent things such as dysentery - and we know that his last illness began with a bad attack of diarrhoea. This would dehydrate him very quickly and lead to renal failure. If not this, we also know from Suetonius that he was often frail during the latter years of his life and conducted some of his business while lying on his couch. There may even have been a malignant process. We can never know at such a distance, but the rumour of his poisoning only holds water if we believe that he intended to restore Postumus to favour. I find this totally ludicrous. Everitt's claim is even more ludicrous and was used simply to hook readers into buying his book, and as Ursus says, he does not go on to expound this theory.

 

All in all, the emperor was weakening in any case. In those days even a severe cold could have led to pneumonia or worse complications that would finish him off. No one of any sense needs to consider poisoning.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Nice post, Augusta.

 

Suetonius makes absolutely no claims whatsoever that Livia poisoned anyone at all. As the most scurrilous of all biographers and the most likely to record any rumour whatever, I find his silence crucial.

 

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus?

Edited August 15, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Primus Pilus]

Nice post, Augusta.

 

Suetonius makes absolutely no claims whatsoever that Livia poisoned anyone at all. As the most scurrilous of all biographers and the most likely to record any rumour whatever, I find his silence crucial.

 

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus?

 

Yes, though it is rather subtle. He suggests in the Annals that the death of Gaius and Lucius may have been illness/accident or due to the treachery of Livia. Cassius Dio also suggests suspicion, but neither writer directly accuses.

 

This seems to be the basis for the legacy of Livia's supposed poisoning...

Tacitus Annals book 1.3.

When Agrippa died, and Lucius Caesar as he was on his way to our armies in Spain, and Caius while returning from Armenia, still suffering from a wound, were prematurely cut off by destiny, or by their step-mother Livia's treachery, Drusus too having long been dead, Nero remained alone of the stepsons, and in him everything tended to center.

 

Hardly overwhelming evidence. I'd suspect that Cassius Dio used Tacitus as the source for his suspicion since there seems to be no other evidence. Here is what he had to say:

Book 53.33

Livia, now, was accused of having caused the death of Marcellus, because he had been preferred before her sons; but the justice of this suspicion became a matter of controversy by reason of the character both of that year and of the year following, which proved so unhealthful that great numbers perished during them.

 

Seems that he is suggesting a rather widely held suspicion if it was controversial?

 

Also, book 55.10a

But even before Gaius' death the spark of life in Lucius had been quenched at Massilia. He, too, was being trained to rule by being dispatched on missions to many places, it was his custom personally to read the letters of Gaius in the senate, whenever he was present. His death was due to a sudden illness. In connexion with both deaths, therefore, suspicion attached to Livia, and particularly because it was just at this time that Tiberius returned to Rome from Rhodes.

[The Augusta]

Nice post, Augusta.

 

Suetonius makes absolutely no claims whatsoever that Livia poisoned anyone at all. As the most scurrilous of all biographers and the most likely to record any rumour whatever, I find his silence crucial.

 

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus?

 

Well, insofar as our extant sources are concerned, yes, I believe it was Tacitus - but even he is not so bold as to come out and say it as such. Referring to the natural deaths of Gaius and Lucius he simply states 'unless their step-mother Livia had a secret hand in them' (Annals, I.1, Tr. Grant). Dio is the one with all the details! As for the death of Augustus, Tacitus' 'Some suspected his wife of foul play' (Annals, I.4, Tr. Grant) turns into the elaborate fig-poisoning tale Dio was to use over 200 years later, by which time, of course, hardly a member of the imperial family seemed to have escaped Livia's machinations. In Annals I.4, however, Tacitus does give us the 'rumour' (and he stresses it as such) of the visit Augustus made to Postumus on Planasia. He clearly links this rumour with the rumour of Livia's 'foul play' - and as I mentioned above, such a charge could only fall on her if the visit to Planasia had taken place.

Edited August 15, 2007 by The Augusta

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

 

Today, a.d. XIII Kalendas September, is the MCMXCIII anniversary of Augustus' death at Nola, 35 days before his 76th birthday.

 

You can also mark this date as the definitive death of the Republic, being the first instance of hereditary transmission of the supreme power at Rome since Tarquin the Proud.

[caldrail]

Nice post, Augusta.

 

Suetonius makes absolutely no claims whatsoever that Livia poisoned anyone at all. As the most scurrilous of all biographers and the most likely to record any rumour whatever, I find his silence crucial.

 

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus?

 

Tacitus reports this, but it isn't his idea - he's merely stating a common rumour that did the rounds. Perhaps it was just an ancient conspiracy theory - Augustus was indeed an old man and therefore liable to a natural death, but gossip was just as prevalent then as now and people usually less informed, so its inevitable that wagging tongues would seek to sensationalise the death of Augustus.

[Ingsoc]

It's should also noted that Tacitus reporting of the rumours that Livia murdered Gaius and Lucius became fact when it's concern to the death of Postumus Agrippa

 

"The first crime of the new reign was the murder of Postumus Agrippa. Though he was surprised and unarmed, a centurion of the firmest resolution despatched him with difficulty. Tiberius gave no explanation of the matter to the Senate; he pretended that there were directions from his father ordering the tribune in charge of the prisoner not to delay the slaughter of Agrippa, whenever he should himself have breathed his last. Beyond a doubt, Augustus had often complained of the young man's character, and had thus succeeded in obtaining the sanction of a decree of the Senate for his banishment. But he never was hard-hearted enough to destroy any of his kinsfolk, nor was it credible that death was to be the sentence of the grandson in order that the stepson might feel secure. It was more probable that Tiberius and Livia, the one from fear, the other from a stepmother's enmity, hurried on the destruction of a youth whom they suspected and hated. When the centurion reported, according to military custom, that he had executed the command, Tiberius replied that he had not given the command, and that the act must be justified to the Senate."

[ASCLEPIADES]

It's should also noted that Tacitus reporting of the rumours that Livia murdered Gaius and Lucius became fact when it's concern to the death of Postumus Agrippa

 

"The first crime of the new reign was the murder of Postumus Agrippa. Though he was surprised and unarmed, a centurion of the firmest resolution despatched him with difficulty. Tiberius gave no explanation of the matter to the Senate; he pretended that there were directions from his father ordering the tribune in charge of the prisoner not to delay the slaughter of Agrippa, whenever he should himself have breathed his last. Beyond a doubt, Augustus had often complained of the young man's character, and had thus succeeded in obtaining the sanction of a decree of the Senate for his banishment. But he never was hard-hearted enough to destroy any of his kinsfolk, nor was it credible that death was to be the sentence of the grandson in order that the stepson might feel secure. It was more probable that Tiberius and Livia, the one from fear, the other from a stepmother's enmity, hurried on the destruction of a youth whom they suspected and hated. When the centurion reported, according to military custom, that he had executed the command, Tiberius replied that he had not given the command, and that the act must be justified to the Senate."

C. Suetonius T. is more cautious about Agrippa' Postumus' death (De Vita XII Caesarum, Tiberius, Ch. XXII):

 

"Tiberius did not make the death of Augustus public until the young Agrippa had been disposed of. The latter was slain by a tribune of the soldiers appointed to guard him, who received a letter in which he was bidden to do the deed; but it is not known whether Augustus left this letter when he died, to remove a future source of discord, or connivance of Tiberius. At all events, when the tribune reported that he had done his bidding, Tiberius replied that he had given no such order, and that the man must render an account to the senate; apparently trying to avoid odium at the time, for later his silence consigned the matter to oblivion."

[ASCLEPIADES]

C. Suetonius T. is more cautious about Agrippa' Postumus' death (De Vita XII Caesarum, Tiberius, Ch. XXII):

 

"Tiberius did not make the death of Augustus public until the young Agrippa had been disposed of. The latter was slain by a tribune of the soldiers appointed to guard him, who received a letter in which he was bidden to do the deed; but it is not known whether Augustus left this letter when he died, to remove a future source of discord, or connivance of Tiberius. At all events, when the tribune reported that he had done his bidding, Tiberius replied that he had given no such order, and that the man must render an account to the senate; apparently trying to avoid odium at the time, for later his silence consigned the matter to oblivion."

And (would you believe it?) Velleius Paterculus was even more succinct and only gave a vote of confidence for his imperial hero (Historiae Romanae, Libri II, Ch. CXII, sec. VII):

 

"About this time Agrippa (Postumus), who had been adopted by his natural grandfather on the same day as Tiberius, and had already, two years before, begun to reveal his true character, alienated from himself the affection of his father and grandfather, falling into reckless ways by a strange depravity of mind and disposition; and soon, as his vices increased daily, he met the end which his madness deserved."

Edited September 7, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES