What was Augustus like?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Briefly stated, I found Nicolaus unreliable.

 

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..

Edited October 15, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gaius Octavius]

Just a thought. Nicolaus was, after all, a friend of Herod the Great, and as Asclepiades pointed out, perhaps the man was accustomed to flattering autocrats? It may be fanciful, but it has certainly got me thinking.

 

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.

 

[ Now, this really makes the case against Augustus.]

 

It's likely that him biography of Augustus was meant as a propoganda to the eastern greeks poplation.

 

[Likely? Proof positive!

 

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.

 

[so he was a flatter of Augustus and not Antony!]

[Gaius Octavius]

Briefly stated, I found Nicolaus unreliable.

 

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).

 

I don't know about Appian, but again I say, C.D. and S. are often discredited. That doesn't mean that they are wrong. I'll go with Nicolaus and the rest of mankind, and the rest of a glass of whisky, some of you have driven me to.

 

I must be plotzed! MPC asks a pro Caesar/Augustus question! No!, I'm blind plotzed!

Edited October 15, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[ASCLEPIADES]

...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.

 

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.

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

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?

 

EDIT: from your last post, I think we agree.

Edited October 15, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

 

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.

Edited October 15, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gaius Octavius]

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 will would only become effective after Caesar's death. The will was deposited with the Vestal Virgins. Don't use the semantics you decry.]

 

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.

 

[so what?]

[Gaius Octavius]

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?

 

EDIT: from your last post, I think we agree.

 

Not to be solicitous of an answer from you, but where is it stated that Octavian's parents advised Augustus to renounce the adoption?

 

Yes, I agree, the acolytes of the anti-Augustan party must answer this.

 

Lord Bacchus, what is going on?

[Primus Pilus]

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?

 

EDIT: from your last post, I think we agree.

 

Not to be solicitous of an answer from you, but where is it stated that Octavian's parents advised Augustus to renounce the adoption?

 

Yes, I agree, the acolytes of the anti-Augustan party must answer this.

 

Nicolaus, Suetonius, Appian and Paterculus. Cassius Dio didn't bother to mention it though.

[The Augusta]

O!. My Glorious Lady Sophia, you succumb much too easily!

 

Hey, now come on, dear Gaius. I've had over 30 years of my opinions on Augustus, and nothing will fundamentally alter the majority of those opinions about him. I do like to think, however, that I can still be open-minded enough at my age to admit to new possibilities that we perhaps have not seen before when reading between the lines of our sources. It was merely a possibility that I hadn't considered before. It is plausible - but perhaps academic. It does nothing to lessen or augment my admiration for the man.

 

Plus - I was not one of the people in this thread who subscribed to the theory that PP was voicing regarding the adoption - i.e. that had Octavian not known about his adoption and had he not been so close to Caesar, this meant that he achieved everything on his own. Or, implicit in this argument was that the later 'propagandists' Cassius Dio and Suetonius were downplaying the help he got from Julius. That hadn't been my take on things at all. Octavian was a cold-hearted, ruthless opportunist who nevertheless regenerated the Roman state. I have never had any misconceptions about a sweet-and-innocent young man who just muddled along the best he could. For all the derision we hear of Syme on the Forum from time to time, I am still 100% behind his portrait of this man - and funnily enough, it is not a portrait I have any problems with at all. I still admire him totally within his age - and as any thorough reading of Syme's work will show, the author had a reluctant regard for him too!

 

Nicolaus may be right and he may be wrong. One thing is certain: Octavian may have had help from his family name; he may have ridden the popularity stakes owing everything to Julius; he may well have chosen superb generals who won his wars for him; he may even have secretly known that he was to be adopted; and finally - he may well have had an awful lot of good fortune in his rise to power. He nevertheless survived 15 years of strife and civil war, when others did not. He was shrewd and he was clever. And this is one of the reasons I will never agree with Caldrail's denial that he was one of the greatest politicians of his age. It takes a very shrewd mind to delegate and to play the opposing factions one against the other.

 

It has been an interesting digression to discuss the adoption, but as the title of the thread is 'What was Augustus like?' whether or not he knew of his status within the bosom of Julius' family when he was 19 years old does not detract from his achievements and those of his regime. IMHO Augustus' personality was fundamental to that success. There are those who admire him and those who loathe him and we can all cite good reasons for our stance on this; but I doubt that any of us - even his detractors - would doubt that he left his mark on the world, and he was not just the puppet of others' machinations.

[Gaius Octavius]

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?

 

EDIT: from your last post, I think we agree.

 

Not to be solicitous of an answer from you, but where is it stated that Octavian's parents advised Augustus to renounce the adoption?

 

Yes, I agree, the acolytes of the anti-Augustan party must answer this.

 

Nicolaus, Suetonius, Appian and Paterculus. Cassius Dio didn't bother to mention it though.

 

You can easily quote this in Nicolaus.

[Primus Pilus]

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?

 

EDIT: from your last post, I think we agree.

 

Not to be solicitous of an answer from you, but where is it stated that Octavian's parents advised Augustus to renounce the adoption?

 

Yes, I agree, the acolytes of the anti-Augustan party must answer this.

 

Nicolaus, Suetonius, Appian and Paterculus. Cassius Dio didn't bother to mention it though.

 

You can easily quote this in Nicolaus.

 

You've probably already read the Nicolaus account if you've followed any of the previous links... but here they are for the sake of clarity.

 

Least descriptive first... Suetonius Life of Augustus 8.2

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.

Paterculus Roman History 2.60

His mother Atia and Philippus his stepfather disliked the thought of his assuming the name of Caesar, whose fortune had aroused such jealousy, but the fates that preside over the welfare of the commonwealth and of the world took into their own keeping the second founder and preserver of the Roman name. 2 His divine soul therefore spurned the counsels of human wisdom, and he determined to pursue the highest goal with danger rather than a lowly estate and safety. He preferred to trust the judgement concerning himself of a great-uncle who was Caesar, rather than that of a stepfather, saying that he had no right to think himself p181unworthy of the name of which Caesar had thought him worthy.

 

Appian Civil Wars 3.10-11

But his mother and his stepfather, Philippus, wrote to him from Rome not to be too confident and not to attempt anything rash, but to bear in mind what Caesar, after conquering every enemy, had suffered at the hands of his closest friends; that it would be safer under present circumstances to choose a private life and hasten to them at Rome, but with caution. Octavian yielded to them because he did not know what had happened after Caesar's death. He took leave of the army officers and crossed the Adriatic, not to Brundusium (for as he had made no test of the army at that place he avoided all risk), but to another town not far from it and out of the direct route, named Lupiae. There he took lodgings and remained for a while.

 

When more accurate information about the murder and the public grief had reached him, together with copies of Caesar's will and the decrees of the Senate, his relatives still more cautioned him to beware of the enemies of Caesar, as he was the latter's adopted son and heir. They even advised him to renounce the adoption, together with the inheritance.

 

Nicolaus Life of Augustus 18 slightly different than Appian's account regarding Atia, but the basic message is the same.

His stepfather Philippus sent him a letter asking him not to take steps to secure Caesar's bequest but even to retain his own name because of what had happened to Caesar and to live free from politics and in safety. Octavius knew that this advice was given with kind intent, but he thought differently, as he already had his mind on great things and he was full of confidence; he therefore took upon himself the toil and danger and the enmity of men whom he did not care to please. Nor did he propose to cede to anyone a name or a rule so great as his, particularly with the state on his side and calling him to come into his father's honors; and very rightly, since both naturally and by law the office belonged to him, for he was the nearest relative and had been adopted as son by Caesar himself, and he felt that to follow the matter up and avenge his death was the proper course to pursue. This is what he thought, and he wrote and so answered Philippus though he did not succeed in convincing him. His mother Atia, when she saw the glory of fortune and the extent of the Empire devolving upon her own son, rejoiced; but on the other hand knowing that the undertaking was full of fear and danger, and having seen what had happened to her uncle Caesar, she was not very enthusiastic; so it looked as if she was between the view of her husband Philippus and that of her son. Hence she felt many cares, now anxious when she enumerated all the dangers awaiting one striving for supreme power, and now elated when she thought of the extent of that power and honor. Therefore she did not dare to dissuade her son from attempting the great deed and effecting a just requital, but still she did not venture to urge him on, because fortune seemed somewhat obscure. She permitted his use of the name Caesar and in fact was the first to assent. Octavian, having made inquiry as to what all his friends thought about this also, without delay accepted both the name and the adoption, with good fortune and favorable omen.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Sorry, but there was another omission from my part.

 

Velleius Paterculus also stated the adoption was posthumous:

(Historiae Romanae, Liber II, Cp. LVIII, sec I):

 

"Caesaris deinde testamentum apertum est, quo C. Octavium, nepotem sororis suae Iuliae, adoptabat.

Caesar's will was then opened, by which he adopted Gaius Octavius, the grandson of his sister Julia."

 

Final score (up to this moment): 1:4.

 

ie, Adoption during Caesar's lifetime (African triumph) 1 (Nicolaus) versus

 

Posthumous adoption 4 (Appian, Cassius Dio, Suetonius and Velleius).

Edited October 16, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

Sorry, but there was another omission from my part.

 

Velleius Paterculus also stated the adoption was posthumous:

(Historiae Romanae, Liber II, Cp. LVIII, sec I):

 

"Caesaris deinde testamentum apertum est, quo C. Octavium, nepotem sororis suae Iuliae, adoptabat.

Caesar's will was then opened, by which he adopted Gaius Octavius, the grandson of his sister Julia."

 

Final score (up to this moment): 1:4.

 

ie, Adoption during Caesar's lifetime (African triumph) 1 (Nicolaus) versus

 

Posthumous adoption 4 (Appian, Cassius Dio, Suetonius and Velleius).

 

Nicolaus doesn't say that Octavius knew of the adoption, and in fact he admits that Caesar kept it secret. He only says that the act of putting him in the will occurred at the time of the triumph. The record of when Caesar registered the will with the Vestals should have been available to anyone who cared to look it up.

 

You are dismissing the account of Nicolaus based on something he didn't actually say. Again, he does not in anyway contradict the other sources, but simply provides more detail. I'll post it again for convenience.

 

Some time before he had decided to adopt him, but fearing that elated at the hope of such good fortune, as those usually are who are brought up in wealth, he might become forgetful of virtue and depart form his accustomed mode of life, Caesar concealed his intention but he adopted him as son in his Will (for he had no male children of his own) and made him residuary legatee of his entire estate, after bequeathing one fourth of his property to friends and townsmen, as was afterwards known.

[caldrail]

he may well have had an awful lot of good fortune in his rise to power. He nevertheless survived 15 years of strife and civil war, when others did not. He was shrewd and he was clever.

He also tended to panic more easily than some, and bore grudges. His major motivation for achieving power wasn't so much to rule or put Rome back together (noble motives? From a roman conquerer?) - It had a lot to do with revenge for Caesars death.

 

And this is one of the reasons I will never agree with Caldrail's denial that he was one of the greatest politicians of his age. It takes a very shrewd mind to delegate and to play the opposing factions one against the other.

Yes he did that, but he wasn't the master he appears to be. I'm not suggesting Octavian wasn't any good, I'm pointing out his deficiencies which his success and subsequent excellent press is blinding us to.

 

There are those who admire him and those who loathe him and we can all cite good reasons for our stance on this; but I doubt that any of us - even his detractors - would doubt that he left his mark on the world, and he was not just the puppet of others' machinations.

I'm not a detractor, far from it, I'm in awe of the young mans willingness to step forward and be recognised. Rather like those modern teenage millionares for instance. Nor do I believe he was a puppet - although there were many who wanted just that - because he managed to break free of that sort of control. However, he did so with support, not by persuasive arguement. You see, its mentioned above that no-one else could bring peace to Rome. Rubbish. There were plenty of players waiting in the wings, but the situation was that Octavian and his peers were the ones in the best position. Once they slugged it out for control, then only Octavian was left. That doesn't exclude the potential of anyone else, and just because the roman historians don't mention someone who never achieved anything is not proof they were useless. If you're in the roman world during political strife, you only raise your head above the parapet when you believe you're in a strong position - which was exactly the case with Octavian. Without Caesar, he may well have been consul once or twice, and not remembered for anything more. This happens with human beings. But for an open door, there are so many talented individuals who never rise to fame. Some might not have the confidence to do so, but such confidence can be taught, as Octavians was. Some might not make the right contacts. Others may not have a face that fits. I do not accept Octavian was the best because his story says something different. Many of the respondents on this thread are seeing him as someone who 'created victory' with his own two hands. had he done so, then yes, his success would have been spectacular. But that just isn't the case with Octavian. He was good, not brilliant, and he had an advantageous situation to begin with.