What was Augustus like?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Octavian probably did not know of his adoption until he reached Brundisium.

Why did Octavian go to Brundisium?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Octavian probably did not know of his adoption until he reached Brundisium.

Why did Octavian go to Brundisium?

That was the normal port for coming to Italy from Greece. Octavius was going to Rome from Apollonia after knowing of Caesar's death . Strictly speaking, he first arrived at Lupiae:

(Appian, Bellum Civilis, Liber III, Cp. X-XII):

 

"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... he went to Brundusium, first sending in advance to see that none of the murderers had laid any trap for him. When the army there advanced to meet him, and received him as Caesar's son, he took courage, offered sacrifice, and immediately assumed the name of Caesar... Directly multitudes of men from all sides flocked to him as Caesar's son, some from friendship to Caesar, others his freedmen and slaves, and with them soldiers besides, who were either engaged in conveying supplies and money to the army in Macedonia, or bringing other money and tribute from other countries to Brundusium. Encouraged by the numbers who were joining him, and by the glory of Caesar, and by the good-will of all toward himself, he journeyed to Rome with a notable crowd which, like a torrent, grew larger and larger each day."

Edited October 13, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

You're missing the point of my question. If Octavian did not know that he was Caesar's heir until after he arrived in Italy (as Augusta posited), why did he go to Italy in the first place? My understanding was that he went to Italy because he had learned he was Caesar's heir, and he wanted to claim his rights. If this is wrong, then we need some other explanation for Octavian's journey.

[ASCLEPIADES]

You're missing the point of my question. If Octavian did not know that he was Caesar's heir until after he arrived in Italy (as Augusta posited), why did he go to Italy in the first place? My understanding was that he went to Italy because he had learned he was Caesar's heir, and he wanted to claim his rights. If this is wrong, then we need some other explanation for Octavian's journey.

Oh, excuse me.

 

I would think Octavius knew or may have imagined he was at least one of Caesar's heirs.

 

What Lady A posited was "Octavian probably did not know of his adoption until he reached Brundisium"; I think his course of action was perfectly congruent with such assumption:

(Appian, Bellum Civilis, Liber III, Cp. IX-XI):

 

"At the end of a six months' sojourn in Apollonia, it was announced to him one evening that Caesar had been killed in the senate-house by those who were dearest to him, and were then his most powerful subordinates. As the rest of the story was untold he was overcome by fear, not knowing whether the deed had been committed by the Senate as a whole or was confined to the immediate actors; nor whether the majority of the Senate had already punished them, or were actually accomplices, or whether the people were pleased with what had been done.

 

Thereupon his friends in Rome advised as follows: some urged him to take refuge with the army in Macedonia to ensure his personal safety, and when he should learn that the murder was only a private transaction to take courage against his enemies and avenge Caesar; and there were high officers who promised to protect him if he would come. 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."

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thanks for finding the material in Appian--his account is immensely clarifying, and I see you're right that it's entirely consistent with Augusta's conjecture.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks for finding the material in Appian--his account is immensely clarifying, and I see you're right that it's entirely consistent with Augusta's conjecture.

Non est, quod gratias agas.

[The Augusta]

May I just thank both Asclepiades and MPC for highlighting this point in the discussion. I happen to be in one of those terrible positions where I studied Augustus' rise to power in depth a very long time ago, yet retain great chunks of information. I knew that I had formed my opinion about his not knowing he was adopted as the heir until he returned to Italy purely through reading the sources - but in my middle years I have become somewhat lazy regarding going to my old shelves and searching through the books.

 

It is not an attractive habit to have fallen into - for which I apologise, gents. I am therefore doubly grateful to Asclepiades for highlighting the relevant passages in Appian.

[Primus Pilus]

I find it difficult to completely suppose that Octavius had no knowledge of his status prior to arriving in Italy. I'm not going to quote the entire passage here, because the entire context is necessary, but Nicolaus of Damascus is fairly convincing that the boy was attached to Caesar in more than a distant relative sort of manner. The actual adoption may be another matter entirely, but Nicolaus' description of the reactions by common people and family friends alike certainly indicates that there is more to the story. It's also entirely possible that people could simply have been showing support for the family and concern for their individual safety, but it somehow resonates stronger than that to me.

 

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/nicolaus.html Begin with chapter 16 through 19 (not very long really).

 

I understand that Cassius Dio also suggests that Octavius was completely unaware of his status as heir and adoptive son (Cass. Dio 45.3) and that Suetonius glosses over it such detail as inconsequential (Suet. Life Aug. 8), but Nicolaus as a contemporary should have a clearer understanding of the events as they unfolded. Of course, I could be completely wrong in my interpretation, but I still wanted to point out the interesting discrepancy.

 

Please understand that I am in complete agreement that Octavius was not aware of Caesar's plan to adopt him, nor the extent of the inheritance. I am only suggesting that the reaction of Octavius from the start is indicative of a familial heir. He was after all, the only male with some sort of direct lineage to Caesar.

[Ingsoc]

I agree with PP, Octavius as Caesar closest male relative could have expected to br named in his will.

[The Augusta]

I agree with PP, Octavius as Caesar closest male relative could have expected to br named in his will.

 

I don't think this bit is in doubt, Ingsoc. I am sure that Octavius would have expected to inherit the odd thousand sesterces or two. But being a beneficiary of your old great-uncle's will and being posthumously adopted as his son are not the same thing.

 

However, this raises - I think - a partial answer to MPC's question of why Octavian set off for Italy. He may well have expected a nice inheritance to be waiting for him. I don't suppose we will ever know the truth.

 

And thanks to PP for that passage of Nicolaus. It certainly deserves consideration.

[ASCLEPIADES]

II'm not going to quote the entire passage here, because the entire context is necessary, but Nicolaus of Damascus is fairly convincing that the boy was attached to Caesar in more than a distant relative sort of manner.

Have you ever heard about flattering? Paterculus is nothing:

 

" Men gave him this name in view of his claim to honor; and, scattered over islands and continents, through city and tribe, they revere him by building temples and by sacrificing to him, thus requiting him for his great virtue and acts of kindness toward themselves...

To set forth the full power of this man's intelligence and virtue,...

His forbears, renowned for both wealth and justice,...

Octavius, at the age of about nine [twelve?] years, was an object of no little admiration to the Romans, exhibiting as he did great excellence of nature,...

At Philippus' house, as if at his father's, Octavius was reared and showed great promise, already seeming to be treated with respect by his comrades, the children of highest birth...

Then while all the citizens looked upon him, because of his comeliness and very evidently noble descent...

He went to the temples on the regular days, but after dark on account of his youthful charm, seeing that he attracted many women by his comeliness and high lineage; though often tempted by them he seems never to have been enticed..."

 

And we only got up to chapter five (of 30).

 

I would think Nicolaus was trying to stress the relationship between both Gods, Divus Iulius and Divus Augustus. I don't think anybody really believes Attia was able to distort the schemes of either Caesar or Octavius; if they were almost never together 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.

Edited October 15, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

Have you ever heard about flattering? Paterculus is nothing:

 

Of course flattery can play a role, but you are quoting a part of Paterculus that really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Book II. 59 supports the practical ideology that Octavius had a vested interest as Caesar's legitimate heir. There is nothing all that flattering about it, except for the notion that he turned down the support of Caesar's veterans (suggesting restraint, respect for the law, peaceful intent, etc.) when it's clear that he had that support from the very start. He may not have yet raised a private army, but he knew that men supported him. Having such knowledge is powerful.

 

At the first announcement of his uncle's death, although the centurions of the neighbouring legions at once proffered their own services and those of their men, and Salvidienus and Agrippa advised him to accept the offer, he made such haste to arrive in the city that he was already at Brundisium when he learned the details of the assassination and the terms of his uncle's will.

 

It's revealing in it's simplicity. Octavius had widespread support and a reasonable supposition that he could gain at least a fraction of the support once offered to Caesar simply by being his heir. Being physically attractive and other such compliments by Paterculus and others didn't make the people rally to his support when Caesar was murdered; being the likely heir of Caesar did (though I readily admit that physical charisma can help any political career). I assume there were plenty of handsome young men who could've drawn the support of the populace if that were the only criteria. What was important was his connection to Caesar by blood, regardless of whether or not Paterculus and others flattered him for whatever reason. Clearly the propaganda published in the stages following the transformation to Augustus would've played a role in later politics, but I see little need to downplay his role as Caesar's possible heir, except only to flatter Augustus by suggesting that he had little to no reliance upon the connection to Caesar.

 

I would think Nicolaus was trying to stress the relationship between both Gods, Divus Iulius and Divus Augustus. .

 

Nicolaus may have been trying to stress this between the lines, but what he definately says describes the people of Appollonia gathering to him to show support along with prominent people coming to visit him and strategize over what action should be taken. Presumably such reaction did not take place for anyone else... only the most practical and direct male heir of Caesar.

 

I don't think anybody really believes Attia was able to distort the schemes of either Caesar or Octavius; if they were almost never together 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

 

Some suggest Caesar and Octavius were actually close, others not. Some suggest Atia and Philippus influenced events, others not. I don't know which historian is the most accurate in this regard and that's not what I'm trying to reflect on, nor the motivations of these individual sources. However, I personally think it's completely practical to assume that such attention wouldn't ever have been applied to Octavius (before he was named official heir) if he wasn't very likely to be a major heir to Caesar in the first place.

 

Octavius had the means to launch his career through the legitimate connection to Caesar. He had a vested interest and was clearly in line for some sort of political or economic boon as Caesar's only living male descendant (provided of course that he assert himself, and he clearly did so with every ounce of political energy he had... and quite successfully.) Hence the deliberation with friends and family and ultimately the decision to go to Rome. Without that connection he was simply the descendant of relatively obscure family, whose father was the first in his line to be enrolled into the senate.

 

I think my practical approach to this is being misconstrued as some sort of personal enmity towards Augustus. He was a tyrant and a butcher, but understand that I readily acknowledge that he was quite probably the only man capable of stabilizing the empire (of the players involved at the time.. who knows what else may have transpired after another generation of civil war and upheaval). I disagree with his methods and the ideological/constitutional result, but a breakup of the empire into factional entities at that time in history probably would've been far worse than the actual result... existence of absolute monarchy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Very interesting. Nicolaus states that Octavian had been adopted by Caesar at the time of Caesar's triumph after the African campaign.

[The Augusta]

Very interesting. Nicolaus states that Octavian had been adopted by Caesar at the time of Caesar's triumph after the African campaign.

 

Indeed, it is interesting - but I would want to know what word is translated here as 'adopted' and also whether we can be sure if Octavian actually knew he was adopted at that time? Marcellus and Tiberius rode on either side of Augustus' chariot in the Triumphs of 29BC - but at that time he hadn't 'adopted' either of them. He was merely singling them out for family honours.

Edited October 15, 2007 by The Augusta

[Primus Pilus]

Very interesting. Nicolaus states that Octavian had been adopted by Caesar at the time of Caesar's triumph after the African campaign.

 

Indeed, it is interesting - but I would want to know what word is translated here as 'adopted' and also whether we can be sure if Octavian actually knew he was adopted at that time? Marcellus and Tiberius rode on either side of Augustus' chariot in the Triumphs of 29BC - but at that time he hadn't 'adopted' either of them. He was merely singling them out for family honours.

 

Nicolaus admits that Caesar kept this information secret, so there's no inconsistency here with the general record. However, there were a few people who knew... Caesar's personal attendants, perhaps the vestals, various advisors, etc. Did Octavius know everything? Clearly not, but there are some strange things to reconcile if people did not think he was an heir.

 

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.