What was Augustus like?

[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.

 

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.

 

Now this has got my brain working.... As you mentioned that Nicolaus was near contemporary to events - could he not have had his own propaganda motives for stressing or suggesting this 'adoption' and closeness of the familial relationship? It adds a sort of legitimacy to Octavian's war of vengeance against Brutus and Cassius?

 

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.

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

Sorry for not being clear enough, but I am quoting Nicolaus of Damascus, not Paterculus; what I meant is that Nicolaus is even more flattering that Velleius. Please check your own link.

[Gaius Octavius]

...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. A dead man can't; unless you are suggesting that the will was forged.

He could have adopted Decimus Brutus, Brutus or Antony. Couldn't it be that Caesar had too much sense for that?

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

Nicolaus could only be flattering. It is not possible that he was telling the truth. As regards Cicero, he could only be lying about his not being either on this or that foot. Augustus could never be so sagacious in his youth. Brutus and his crowd of murders were the sagacious and honorable men who had only the good of the state in mind. That's why they won. The people, of course were wrong. The whole world was, and is wrong!

 

When people flatter, they are inconsistent. Nicolaus is not.

 

Who gainsays Nicolaus? What 'proof' do they have? Why should they be believed?

 

Again, I ask, which one of these brave louts would have done a better job than the ignoble Augustus?

 

Enough of tendentious Ivory Tower twaddle!

Edited October 15, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[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.

 

Now this has got my brain working.... As you mentioned that Nicolaus was near contemporary to events - could he not have had his own propaganda motives for stressing or suggesting this 'adoption' and closeness of the familial relationship? It adds a sort of legitimacy to Octavian's war of vengeance against Brutus and Cassius?

 

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.

 

I agree that it's very possible. Perhaps even likely, but of that we can't be entirely certain. My contention here is based on the fact that Octavius would've had absolutely no possibility to accomplish what he did without the connection to Caesar whether writers flattered him or not. In any case, if we use propaganda/flattery as an excuse against the source material, then its entirely believable to think that the same sources downplayed the connection in order to help propagate the concept of Augustus' rise completely on his own merit, rather than the required lineage.

 

Regardless, whether his adoption or status as actual heir was known by him or his family or not known at all, everyone in the Roman world knew that this boy was Caesar's only legitimate male heir. He was supported as such and treated as such by common people and by veterans from the very arrival of the news of Caesar's death. There was no other living person that could claim the lineage and therefore the sympathy/sentiment that he received.

[The Augusta]

...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.

 

Point taken, Gaius - but I think what Asclepiades and I are trying to say is that the adoption was not known until after the Dictator's death. I remain convinced of this, but we are trying the thrash it out with the help of PP's citation of Nicolaus.

[Primus Pilus]

...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.

 

Point taken, Gaius - but I think what Asclepiades and I are trying to say is that the adoption was not known until after the Dictator's death. I remain convinced of this, but we are trying the thrash it out with the help of PP's citation of Nicolaus.

 

To be clear, I am by no means suggesting that Octavian was entirely aware of his actual standing in the will. I am only suggesting that because of his actual and well understood status as the only male descendant of Caesar, he was treated as his heir and he took advantage of that treatment whether it was actually in a will or not. When it became fact, the confirmation clearly helped swell the support, but the sentiment was already there.

[The Augusta]

I agree that it's very possible. Perhaps even likely, but of that we can't be entirely certain. My contention here is based on the fact that Octavius would've had absolutely no possibility to accomplish what he did without the connection to Caesar whether writers flattered him or not. In any case, if we use propaganda/flattery as an excuse against the source material, then its entirely believable to think that the same sources downplayed the connection in order to help propagate the concept of Augustus' rise completely on his own merit, rather than the required lineage.

 

I have no argument at all with this PP. Antony was not being entirely flippant when he maintained that Octavian owed everything to his name. Although I am a staunch Augustus supporter, I have never ever contended that he could have even been in the position to 'raise a private army and save Rome from the domination of a faction' (RG, 1) without his connection to Julius. But I cannot see why people should try to say this in any case. He publicly honoured Julius throughout his life with temples and comets on statues' heads and such nonsense. I don't think Augustus himself ever wanted to play down his connection. And this to me, makes Nicolaus' testimony all the more telling.

 

You see - I'm beginning to rethink this now, and wonder if he did know secretly what was afoot after all! (Thank the gods for this Forum and our candid discussions. We're never too old to change our minds.) PP - I feel as though we've been sat in the pub chatting about this.

Edited October 15, 2007 by The Augusta

[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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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."

 

You can also check other aseverations of Nicolaus in a previous post(#56) on this same thread.

 

Briefly stated, I found Nicolaus unreliable.

Edited October 15, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Gaius Octavius]

To be clear, I am by no means suggesting that Octavian was entirely aware of his actual standing in the will. I am only suggesting that because of his actual and well understood status as the only male descendant of Caesar, he was treated as his heir and he took advantage of that treatment whether it was actually in a will or not. When it became fact, the confirmation clearly helped swell the support, but the sentiment was already there.

 

What is heinous about that?

Edited October 15, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Ingsoc]

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.

 

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

 

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.

[Gaius Octavius]

...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.

Edited October 15, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Gaius Octavius]

I agree that it's very possible. Perhaps even likely, but of that we can't be entirely certain. My contention here is based on the fact that Octavius would've had absolutely no possibility to accomplish what he did without the connection to Caesar whether writers flattered him or not. In any case, if we use propaganda/flattery as an excuse against the source material, then its entirely believable to think that the same sources downplayed the connection in order to help propagate the concept of Augustus' rise completely on his own merit, rather than the required lineage.

 

I have no argument at all with this PP. Antony was not being entirely flippant when he maintained that Octavian owed everything to his name. Although I am a staunch Augustus supporter, I have never ever contended that he could have even been in the position to 'raise a private army and save Rome from the domination of a faction' (RG, 1) without his connection to Julius. But I cannot see why people should try to say this in any case. He publicly honoured Julius throughout his life with temples and comets on statues' heads and such nonsense. I don't think Augustus himself ever wanted to play down his connection. And this to me, makes Nicolaus' testimony all the more telling.

 

You see - I'm beginning to rethink this now, and wonder if he did know secretly what was afoot after all! (Thank the gods for this Forum and our candid discussions. We're never too old to change our minds.) PP - I feel as though we've been sat in the pub chatting about this.

 

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

Edited October 15, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[M. Porcius Cato]

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?

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

 

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

 

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.

Indeed, Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology has an extensive article about him (pg. 930-932); its commentary about his Augustus' biography is:

 

"3. A life of Augustus. This work is lost, like the rest, with the exception of excerpta which were made from it by the command of Constantinus Porphyrogenitus. These excerpta shew that the author was not much concerned about accuracy, and that the biography was more of a eulogy than of a history. Some writers have been of opinion, that this biography formed a part of the universal history; but there seems to be no ground for this hypothesis."

 

Honestly, I couldn't agree more.

[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?

 

O!, my gods! Has the whisky done me a disservice?