No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
BABY STEPS FOR OCTAVIAN: 44 B.C.?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2018
Extract
Historians of antiquity are trained to be suspicious of accounts that may retroject onto the early years of figures, who were later dominant, positive traits that plausibly were exhibited only later, in essence the creation of a mythology. In the case of the Emperor Augustus, who exercised a firm control on the Roman world for over forty years after the defeat of his rival M. Antonius and introduced a new form of government, the probability that the years of his ascent to supreme power were subjected to careful recasting is very high. Here I examine an argument that was presented in 2004 on the very beginning of Octavian's public life, which, if correct, reveals a stuttering start by a young man inexperienced in the realities of Roman politics at a tumultuous moment in Roman history.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2018
References
1 In connection with Augustus and the creation of a mythology around him the literature is immense; see recently the collection edited by Labate, M. and Rosati, G., La costruzione del mito augusteo (Heidelberg, 2013)Google Scholar.
2 Toher, M., ‘Octavian's arrival in Rome, 44 b.c.’, CQ 54 (2004), 174–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His argument is accepted by Osgood, J., Caesar's Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2006), 31Google Scholar and Cowan, E., ‘“Marius” in Nicolaus of Damascus. Some implications from chronology’, Athenaeum 97 (2009), 159–68Google Scholar, at 163. There is a useful treatment of the early stages of Octavian's career in Sumi, G.S., Ceremony and Power. Performing Politics in Rome between Republic and Empire (Ann Arbor, 2008)Google Scholar, especially 125–31. He takes no note of Toher's argument (this note), but proposes a longer chronology close to that which I will advance.
3 The recent biographies of Augustus, both pre-Toher and post-Toher follow the consensus: see e.g. Eck, W., Augustus (Malden, 2003), 10Google Scholar; Levick, B., Augustus: Image and Substance (Harlow, 2010), 25Google Scholar and Bleicken, J., Augustus. The Biography (London, 2015), 47Google Scholar and 52–3; for those forming the consensus, see Toher (n. 2), 174 n. 2. Although he does not deal with the events of March to July 44, Luke, T.S., Ushering in a New Republic. Theologies of Arrival at Rome in the First Century b.c.e. (Ann Arbor, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar offers an excellent treatment of the way in which formal arrivals in Rome could be carefully staged. In his recent monograph (Toher, M., Nicolaus of Damascus: The Life of Augustus and the Autobiography [Cambridge, 2017]Google Scholar), Toher does not add substantially to the case made in 2004. I have used his text throughout, as it will now be the standard edition.
4 Toher (n. 2), 176.
5 For road journeys mean daily travel distances in kilometres have been calculated at 12 for ox carts, 20 for porters or heavily loaded mules, 30 for foot travellers including armies on the march, 36 for routine private vehicular travel with convenient rest stops, 50 for accelerated private vehicular travel, 56 for routine travel on horseback, 60 for rapid short-term military marches without baggage, 67 for fast carriages (state post or private couriers) and 250 for continuous horse relays (see http://orbis.stanford.edu/#building). The modelling is based on more than a century of modern scholarship on ancient and pre-modern transport and on the accurate mapping of the Barrington Atlas project. That we are dealing with long journeys in this investigation is a helpful factor in using ORBIS, as in cases of extended travel the variables even out and long-term averages are more likely to be approximated to.
6 Alföldi, A., Oktavians Aufstieg zur Macht (Bonn, 1976)Google Scholar, especially 46–50; Toher (n. 2), passim.
7 Sumi (n. 2), 98–100 discusses the significance of the public reading of the will, which was probably delivered to M. Antonius on the evening of 15 March. The reading can now be fixed either to 16 or to 17 March, if the latter was the date of the funeral (see below, n. 12).
8 Christiaan Bronkhorst (per litteras) has suggested that, given the urgent nature of the request made by Brutus (Cic. Ad Brut. 2.3.1), his messengers should have travelled quickly, and thus that the ten days that his letter took should function as a minimum for a journey in March/April and thus add weight to the case for having news of Caesar's death not reach Apollonia before 25 March.
9 Toher (n. 2), 179: ‘by 25 March’; cf. (n. 3), 233: ‘by 25 March or possibly sooner due to the nature of the news’. Gotter, U., Der Diktator ist tot! Politik in Rom zwischen den Iden des März und der Begründung des Zweiten Triumvirats (Stuttgart, 1996), 56Google Scholar, 59.
10 Suetonius (Aug. 8.2: utque primum occisum eum heredemque se comperit, diu cunctatus an proximas legiones imploraret, id quidem consilium ut praeceps inmaturumque omisit) is the clearest evidence, but diu ranges widely in meaning in Suetonius. None the less, the clear suggestion is not of haste. Nicolaus of Damascus (FGrHist F 130.41) mentions thorough consideration (πολλῆς δὲ σκέψεως γενομένης). Appian (BCiv. 3.10) emphasizes Octavian's ignorance of events in Rome and his caution, and provides no indication of haste or speed in his crossing to Italy. The scale of preparations and entourage suggested by Dio (45.3.2: χρήματα πολλὰ καὶ στρατιώτας συχνοὺς συμπροπεμφθέντας) would entail some delay.
11 Toher (n. 2), 179–80; Alföldi (n. 6), 46.
12 (n. 6), 46.
13 All influential reconstructions before this have assumed that Caesar's funeral took place on 20 March, but compelling arguments have been made for the earlier date of 17 March. Cicero links Caesar's funeral with the Liberalia, celebrated on 17 March (Att. 14.10; Phil. 2.90); circumstantial details in Suetonius (Iul. 84) and Quintilian (Inst. 6.1.25–31) strongly support a connection with the festival, as does a plausible interpretation of the schedule of senate meetings and other activities recorded by Plutarch, Appian and Dio; see Carotta, F. and Eickenberg, A., ‘Liberalia tu accusas! Restituting the ancient date of Caesar's funus’, REA 113 (2011), 447–67Google Scholar.
14 If we follow Nicolaus’ description of the messengers who met Octavian in Lupiae as eyewitnesses of the funeral (FGrHist F 130.48: ἐτυγχάνει τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ θαπτομένῳ Καίσαρι) and place the funeral on 17 March, these messengers could have travelled the 580 kilometres to Lupiae comfortably by 29 March (Toher's date for Octavian's arrival). The subsequent arrival of Atia's letter at Brundisium, which seems to advance Octavian's knowledge of events in Rome no further, must have taken a long time if sent shortly after 17 March.
15 See n. 5.
16 Toher (n. 2), 182–3 accepts the version found in Dio (45.5.2), where Octavian entered Rome as a private citizen accompanied by only a few. For Toher, M. Antonius had no idea that Octavian was intending to press for the ratification of his adoption by Caesar until he presented his claim in person to C. Antonius, who was functioning as praetor in Rome, carrying out the duties of Brutus the elected Urban Praetor (see Luce, T.J., ‘Appian's magisterial terminology’, CPh 56 [1961], 21–8Google Scholar, at 22–3), but if Appian's version in which Octavian immediately assumed the name Caesar at Brundisium, securing the support of the troops there and of Caesar's veterans throughout Italy as Caesar's son, is to be believed, M. Antonius could hardly have been unaware of the claim of sonship and the likelihood of moves towards its ratification, and so his visit to Campania from late April in part at least was to counteract Octavian's visits to the veteran settlements.
17 Nicolaus’ heavy emphasis on Octavian's rejection of advice to raise a force (FGrHist F 130.57) reflects the bias of his source. Octavian did not need to summon troops to Brundisium; the welcome he received along the route revealed the threat that he could pose and explains why M. Antonius needed to shore up his own support among the same colonies so urgently in late April before (on my reconstruction) Octavian reached Rome.
18 See Toher (n. 2), 181. Holmes, T. Rice, The Architect of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928), 5Google Scholar suggests that the Senate awarded Macedonia to M. Antonius in mid April, as a reward for his elimination of pseudo-Marius. Cicero knew of the suppression of Marius on 15 April (Att. 14.8.1), which requires that the action took place no later than 13 April: Sumi (n. 2), 114; cf. Pappano, A.E., ‘The pseudo-Marius’, CPh 30 (1935), 58–65Google Scholar, at 63, for 14 April.
19 For discussion of issues relating to the context, route and mode of transport, see E. Gowers, ‘Horace, Satires 1.5: an inconsequential journey’, PCPhS 39 (1994), 48–66.
20 Toher (n. 2), 182. ORBIS calculates the shortest distance between Rome and Naples by road at 218 kilometres and a journey of 4.4 days for accelerated private transport, 3.6 days for rapid military march and 3.3 days by fast carriage. As the coastal Via Domitia was not yet built in 44 b.c., the shortest journey will have been 242 kilometres (Naples-Puteoli-Capua-Rome): 4.8 days accelerated private transport, 4 days rapid military march, 3.6 days fast carriage.
21 The assumption of Bailey, D.R. Shackleton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus. Volume VI (Cambridge, 1967), 110Google Scholar is that Atticus reported that Octavian had arrived, but Cicero's omission of a verb in the three indirect questions that comprise his response makes it possible that Atticus reported the imminent arrival of Octavian. I do not rely on this in my reconstruction of the chronology.
22 Cf. Att. 14.4.1, where Cicero complains that he was getting no news even in Lanuvium, whereas Atticus was getting daily updates in Rome.
23 A string of letters enables us to locate Cicero on almost a daily basis from 7 April: 7 near Rome, 9 Tusculum, 10 Lanuvium, 11 Astura, 12 Fundi, 15 Formiae, 16 Sinuessa, 17 Puteoli, 19 Cumae, 21 Puteoli.
24 See Keppie, L., Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47–14 b.c. (London, 1983), 143–4Google Scholar.
25 Alföldi (n. 6), 46–7 allows six days for the journey from Brundisium to Puteoli, which is too short a time for anything other than a small party moving rapidly.
26 Toher (n. 2), 178 n. 13 understands the phrase aditurum hereditatem in an unnatural way; it ‘means that Octavian was in the process of taking up the inheritance’ (my italics). The future participle is better taken as simply future—‘he is going to accept his inheritance (when he gets to Rome)’; there is not the slightest hint that Octavian had already been to Rome and as he met Cicero had already suffered a major rebuff in relation to his adoption. The manuscripts’ ῥιξοθεμιν is undoubtedly corrupt; the restoration rixam timet (cf. Alföldi [n. 6], 48 n. 155) nicely introduces the notion of a quarrel. Again, if there had already been the serious fallout that Toher's reconstruction suggests, perhaps some indication ‘further/another’ might be expected.
27 If Octavian had already been to Rome and had been thwarted, then he was in the same boat as the liberators, but Cicero again gives no hint that Octavian's supporters are going to ensure he succeeds this time. Toher (n. 2), 178 n. 14 requires that the uenerit clause is ‘misleading’. If Octavian was still to reach Rome, from Atticus’ perspective in Rome uenerit conveys the right sense.
28 The vehicle of a contio for Octavian to express to the common people of Rome his devotion to Caesar and his plans to honour him was the best available: see Tan, J., ‘Contiones in the age of Cicero’, ClAnt 27 (2008), 163–201Google Scholar. The ostensibly peculiar behaviour of M. Antonius’ brother in convening the contio at which Octavian spoke can be explained either by the hope that he would counter the influence of Dolabella, who was supporting the liberators (so Gotter [n. 9], 64), or that he believed he was honouring Caesar (so Sumi [n. 2], 129).
29 For cycles of correspondence taking seven and six days at this period, see Shackleton Bailey (n. 21), 244 and 221; for a two-day one-way delivery, see Shackleton Bailey (n. 21), 241 and for an extremely fast one-way journey of less than two days, see Shackleton Bailey (n. 21), 285.
30 I allow 31 kilometres for the road between Puteoli and Capua (see Chianese, G., ‘Ricognizione della consolare Campana lungo il suo tracciato meno noto’, Campania Romana, vol. 1 [Naples, 1938], 47Google Scholar) and then use ORBIS for the remaining journey: 4.6 days for accelerated private transport, 6.7 days for routine private transport and 3.8 days for travel on horseback.
31 Appian (BCiv. 3.12) can be used to support this: he records that Octavian sent away his veterans before reaching Terracina. Velleius (2.59.6) has a huge crowd (immanis amicorum frequentia) leave Rome to escort him in. I do not think it is possible to fit into the period 26 and 27 April all that Appian records as occurring straight after Octavian's aduentus. According to Appian (BCiv. 3.14), he did nothing significant on the day of his aduentus beyond meeting his mother and stepfather; on the following day he presented himself before C. Antonius and then before M. Antonius in the Horti Pompeiani. Disagreement ensued, resulting in Octavian selling off his assets and a series of lawsuits being instituted against him (App. BCiv. 3.21–2). We know from Cicero that M. Antonius left Rome sometime between 22 and 28 April (Att. 14.15.1; for the date, see Rice Holmes [n. 18], 190) and did not return till mid May. If we assume Octavian arrived outside Rome on the evening of 26 April, having taken four days to move from the Bay of Naples with a smallish retinue, and entered early next morning, as the depiction of the halo-effect that surrounded him requires (cf. H. Kleinstück, ‘Antike Beobachtungen zur meteorologischen Optik’, Berliner philologische Wochenschrift 52 [1932], 238–44, at 244 and Sumi [n. 2], 128), the confrontation with both Antonii occurred on 28 April, which contradicts Cicero's testimony on the consul's absence. Toher (n. 3), 373 extends Octavian's stay at Puteoli to 9 May.
32 Nicolaus, FGrHist F 130.108; App. BCiv. 3.28. Both passages are quoted in extenso below.
33 The suggestion was made first by Drumann, W., Geschichte Roms (rev. P. Groebe) (Berlin, 1899), 1.85–9Google Scholar and was developed by Rice Holmes (n. 18), 191. Because Cicero's letters do not record everything that occurred, the absence of an explicit note that games were postponed is not fatal to the idea.
34 For the scholarship and arguments, see Ryan, F.X., ‘The type of aedileship of Critonius’, Hermes 128 (2000), 243–6Google Scholar, at 243–4; Toher (n. 2), 175–6 and (n. 3), 375. Malitz, J., Nikolaos von Damaskus Leben des Kaisers Augustus (Darmstadt, 2003), 178Google Scholar presumes an identification with the Ludi Florales; Torrens (in Goukowsky, P. and Torrens, P., Appien. Guerres Civiles Livre III [Paris, 2010], 124Google Scholar) suggests that a date for Octavian's aduentus before 3 May is too early. On the Ludi Florales, see Wiseman, T.P., Unwritten Rome (Exeter, 2008), 175–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 See Sumi (n. 2), 303 n. 30.
36 See Ramsey, J.T. and Licht, A.L., The Comet of 44 b.c. and Caesar's Funeral Games (Atlanta, 1997)Google Scholar, especially 48–54 and Toher (n. 3), 376–7 for their identification with the ludi Veneris Genetricis moved from their previous date in September by Octavian.
37 Toher (n. 2), 175 n. 7, following L.R. Taylor, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, 1931), 87 n. 15.
38 See e.g. Gowing, A.M., The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann Arbor, 1992), 39–42Google Scholar, Goukowsky and Torrens (n. 34), xcviii–cxix. For a very different view, see Westall, R., ‘The sources for the Civil Wars of Appian of Alexandria’, in Welch, K. (ed.), Appian's Roman History: Empire and Civil War (Swansea, 2015), 125–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who holds that Seneca the Elder was Appian's major ‘source’ and that Pollio, Libo and Livy were only used episodically or for specific issues (156–9). K. Welch, ‘Programme and narrative in Civil Wars 2.118–4.138’, in Welch (this note), 277–304, at 285 identifies the clear changes of perspective between 3.2–31, which present Octavian's perspective, and 3.32–66, which present ‘the thought-world’ of M. Antonius; blocks of narrative offer conflicting evaluations of the protagonists.
39 Cf. Westall (n. 38), 147, who writes of a narrative ‘organised according to theatres of action’.
40 See Rice Holmes (n. 18), 17, 196–7; Gowing (n. 38), 63 n. 17; Goukowsky and Torrens (n. 34), 105.
41 3.6 mentions the award of the cura annonae, which can be fixed to 5 June (Att. 15.9.1), then 3.7 records Brutus’ and Cassius’ departure from Rome, which seems to have occurred by 13 April (Att. 14.7.1). Appian's later recapitulation of what befell the two conspirators (BCiv. 4.57) maintains the false notion that they had been awarded provinces by Caesar.
42 See below for more detailed discussion of this.
43 So Alföldi (n. 6), 89–91, followed by Magnino, D., Appiani Bellorum Ciuilium Liber Tertius (Florence, 1984), 140Google Scholar. Toher ([n. 3], 380) plausibly holds that, even at the games of July, Octavian could manage only a partial payment of the legacy prescribed in Caesar's will.
44 θέας δὲ πλησιαζούσης (3.23) is imprecise, but gives a terminus ante quem of 7 July. Cicero (Att. 15.11.2) knew on 7 June that Brutus had decided not to be present at the games, but still to fund them; the handover of responsibility (to C. Antonius) was still in the future c.10 June (Att. 15.12.1).
45 Hirtius’ letter to Cicero in early June (Att. 15.6.2–3) reveals unspecified possible actions by Brutus and Cassius; on 7 June Cassius was revealing to Cicero his intention of leaving for Greece (Att. 15.11.1), and around 10 June Brutus had decided to leave and was making arrangements (Att. 15.12.1). His actual departure came only in August.
46 He had intended to bring the Macedonia proposal before the Senate on 1 June (Att. 14.14.4—a letter of 28/29 April), but resorted instead to a tribunician plebiscite that can plausibly be dated to either 2 or 3 June (Rice Holmes [n. 18], 193–5; Goukowsky and Torrens [n. 34], 123).
47 The senatus consultum abolishing the dictatorship was passed in late March or early April. Either Appian has misplaced it here (Rice Holmes [n. 18], 5 n. 4) or plausibly the lex ratifying the Senate's decision belongs in June (Dyck, A.R., Cicero: Philippics I–II [Cambridge, 2003], 89Google Scholar) or the second half of May after M. Antonius’ return to Rome.
48 Magnino (n. 43), 143.
49 For the length of the games in 44, see Ramsey and Licht (n. 36), 54–5.
50 See Gotter (n. 9), 271–2. Toher ([n. 3], 393) also accepts a date in late July/early August.
51 For the duplication and chronological distortions, see Goukowsky and Torrens (n. 34), xxiv–xxv, 120.
52 The use of μέν and δέ and the imperfect tenses of the two ἔμελλε and of παρεσκεύαζεν highlight the synchronicity.
53 (n. 34), 123.
54 ORBIS suggests that a normal army march for the 540 kilometres to Rome would take 18 days.
55 The Loeb translation (White, H., Appian's Roman History [Cambridge, MA and London, 1912]Google Scholar) ‘Gaius proceeded to do as ordered’ is too stark; Goukowsky's ‘s'apprêtait à agir’ is preferable.
56 See Gowing (n. 38), 65.
57 Cf. Toher (n. 2), 177–8 and (n. 3), 375.
58 Although her translation conceals the significance of αὖθις, Bellemore follows the same interpretation as Toher (Bellemore, J., Nicolaus of Damascus Life of Augustus [Bristol, 1984]Google Scholar).
59 See Bellemore (n. 58), 120–1, Malitz (n. 34), 117–18 and Toher, M., ‘Julius Caesar and Octavian in Nicolaus’, in Cairns, F. and Fantham, E. (edd.), Caesar against Liberty? Perspectives on his Autocracy (Cambridge, 2003), 138–9Google Scholar.
60 See Toher (n. 2), 177 and (n. 3), 372–4 for the excerptor's paraphrasing and summarizing.
61 Because of the financial difficulties which Octavian faced after his acceptance of his inheritance on his arrival in Rome and which continued into July (App. BCiv. 3.22–3), the (partial) payment of Caesar's legacy did not take place before the ludi Victoriae Caesaris. The reconciliation belongs in late July (see n. 50).
62 Toher (n. 2), 184.