THE YOUTH WHO BECAME AUGUSTUS P ART 2 A Reconsideration of the early life and career of C Octavius/C Julius Caesar Octavianus/Caesar Augustus, with particular attention on the course of Octavian’s life from the assassination of Julius Caesar to the formation of the Second Triumvirate. by KATHLEEN D. TOOHEY JANUARY 1981 (Photo of Bust of Augustus – British Museum (c) July 2002) 1 RETURN TO ROME Brundisium So after learning the contents of Caesar’s will Octavius decided to go to Brundisium. This act can be regarded as a public declaration of his intention to accept the inheritance and the adoption.1 In Appian’s account, Octavius equates the acceptance of these bequests with his duty to avenge Caesar.2 In such matters, there is always a temptation to be cynical, and to regard such statements as mere noble-sounding propaganda, designed to conceal the underlying quest for power. But to desire vengeance against those who had killed someone who had showered as many favours upon you as Caesar had upon Octavian, who had shown you numerous considerations, and had chosen to adopt you as his son and heir, is quite a natural reaction. Jones is quite correct in judging that Octavius must have felt “a furious hatred for the murderers”.3 It is therefore still too early to attempt to assess the possible political ambitions of Octavius. However, it would seem from Appian that even the investigations Octavian had carried out to that time were not quite enough to reassure him he would be safe in Brundisium. Consequently, he felt it necessary to send ahead to see if the murderers had laid any traps for him there, before proceeding to the town. His caution proved unnecessary. The ‘army’ there; presumably the garrison; “advanced to meet him, and received him as Caesar’s son”.4 It appears that it was at this point he assumed the name of Caesar.5 (To avoid possible confusion, however, he will hereafter still be referred to as Octavian.) It was with this action, according to Appian, that an entourage began to gather to Octavian, and Appian provides us with a brief description of its composition. It consisted in part of free men who came to him out of friendship to Caesar. But it also contained those that had been Caesar’s freedmen and slaves, as well as soldiers passing through Brundisium on various duties.6 I believe it would be dangerous to read too much into this gathering.7 For one thing, we have no idea of what they were offering Octavian, and whatever it was probably varied between the various groups that comprised the entourage. It is, for example, highly unlikely that soldiers on active service would abandon their duties at this early stage to follow Octavian. And the question needs to be asked; what were Caesar’s slaves and freedmen doing in Brundisium? I would suggest the following as an at least partial solution. It seems to me quite likely and natural that among those close to Caesar at the time of his death, some would spare a thought for the effect the news of the assassination would have upon the kin Caesar was fondest of; the one who was quickly revealed to be his son and heir. It is reasonable then that some of these would be moved to make the trip to Brundisium both to meet the new Caesar when he chose to return from Apollonia; and to offer their condolences together 1 He had certainly decided to do so by the time he had reached Naples (Cicero Letters to Atticus, XIV.10. (Tr. by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, p. 570.) This is the most likely point at which the decision would have been made. Appian Civil Wars III. 11, also implies that this was the case. 2 And to do anything less would be “disgraceful”. Appian Civil Wars III. 10 – 11. 3 Jones, Augustus, p. 12. 4 Appian Civil Wars III. 10 – 11. 5 Appian Civil Wars III. 10 – 11. Dio XLV 3. 2. 6 Appian Civil Wars III. 10 – 11. 7 True – but close analysis is essential, Dr B. W. Jones. (As in Part I, I have included a transcript of the original brief, hand-written comments by my then supervisor and mentor, Dr Brian W. Jones in the footnotes in blue italics.) 2 with whatever help and service they could. While the slaves will have presented themselves for duty to their new master. From such a basis the supporters who gathered to Octavian in Brundisium must have been a very mixed assemblage. There would, of course, have been the political opportunists among them, plus radical elements, and those screaming that Caesar’s death must be avenged immediately. But besides these there would have been those who offered the same sort of advice as his mother and step-father, and those who came to greet him less out of consideration to Octavian then as a final mark of respect to Caesar. I think it quite possible also that the only thing many of them really offered, was to accompany Caesar’s heir on his trip back to Rome. Doubtless, many of them must have had other commitments they could not afford to leave for too long. Many of those who joined Octavian’s entourage later during the course of his trip to Rome, may have done so with a similar limited intent. Dio adds that Octavian had “large sums of money and numerous soldiers who had been sent ahead under his charge”.8 Both claims must be viewed with suspicion. With regard to the money, it is possible that Dio is here conflating events, since he quickly proceeds to Octavian’s arrival in Rome.9 The soldiers are harder to account for. We have no other mention of them, and the idea of their presence does not accord well with the sort of caution we have seen Octavian exhibit in the other ancient accounts, notably Appian. As well, questions such as who sent them ahead, and from where, are unanswerable. In all, it is probably wiser and safer to regard the reference to them as an error. For fuller details on Octavian’s trip to Rome, we must turn to Cicero. The first reference to Octavian comes in a letter to Atticus, from Astura, dated the 11th of April. In it, Cicero enquires how the arrival of Octavius proceeded, and asks whether there was “any rallying to him or suspicion of a coup d’état”. One should not, however, read too much into these enquiries, as Cicero, himself seems to dismiss them.10 Rather they should be seen as just one of the ways in the course of the letter, whereby Cicero vents his concern over the current political situation. A point to note is that Cicero refers to Octavian as Octavius. As we shall see, the way Cicero refers to Octavian, in his choice of names, reveals much about Cicero’s attitude to and opinion of Octavian. In this first reference, Cicero refers to Octavian by his former; i.e. before the adoption; nomen, or family name, of Octavius. Since this is a private letter, it is perhaps not unreasonable to regard the name Cicero uses in letters to close friends, as the name he normally identifies an individual with. This suggests that at this time, if only subconsciously, or to himself alone, Cicero was refusing to recognise the reality of the adoption, with all of its possible political ramifications. This first reference gives us some help in identifying the rough date of Octavian’s arrival in Italy, but there are problems. The form of the reference suggests that Cicero had either heard a report that Octavian had arrived but lacked details, or that he had had heard that Octavian’s arrival was imminent. Clearly, Octavian’s arrival must be dated to before the 11th, since an allowance must be made for the time it would take for news to reach Cicero of the event that prompted him to make his enquiry. Estimations for the time it would take for news to travel any particular distance cannot be made with any accuracy, but it could have taken some days to travel the couple of hundred miles between Brundisium and Astura, and even longer if the news came to him by way of Rome. We receive no clarification from the next reference to Octavius in 8 Dio XLV. 3. 2. Dio XLV 4. 1 – 4. 10 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 564. (XIV. 5) 9 3 a letter dated to the 12th of April. On this occasion, Cicero merely dismissed his previous enquiry, “as for Octavius, it’s neither here nor there”,11 which suggests he did not see Octavian as any serious threat. At best, then, we may calculate that Octavian crossed to Lupiae in Italy in late March or early April, just two to three weeks after the assassination. Naples By 19 April, however, Cicero had heard that Octavian had arrived at Naples on the 18th of April. Cicero’s letter relates that Octavius was met by Balbus early on the 19th, in Naples.12 Balbus had been one of Caesar’s more powerful agents and confidants, as well as his “confidential man of business” (in Jones’ estimation).13 Syme, for whom Balbus is one of the virtual architects of the downfall of the Republic,14 attaches some importance to the meeting. In Syme seems to regard the meeting as representing Octavian’s first contact with the Caesarian party. And it could be argued that there is latent in Syme’s account of Octavian’s meeting with Balbus and other members of the Caesarian faction the implication that the initiative lay with Octavian.15 Syme may, however, be being premature, since, on the 11th of May, Cicero could write of Balbus that “the whole tenor of his talk argued friendship for Antony”.16 It may well have been the case then that if Balbus had committed himself to anyone at this time, it was to Antony. And if so he was here acting as Antony’s agent. Alternatively, it is possible that he was uncommitted at the time of this interview. This might be inferred if there is any truth in Cicero’s later assessment that Balbus’ first impression of Octavian was insufficient to persuade him that his best interests lay in supporting Caesar’s heir; at least not against Antony. And it is clear that Balbus, and others, were anticipating a conflict between Antony and Octavian. In the letter of the 19th Cicero further records that Balbus called on him the same day Cicero met with Octavian. In that meeting Balbus told Cicero that Octavian was going to accept the inheritance. And Cicero then adds the comment, “But as you say, he fears a mighty tussle with Antony”.17 The comment tells us two things. The first is that Atticus had already reported to Cicero, or possibly just suggested, that Octavian expected difficulties from Antony. Whether Atticus’ comment were based on information provided by Octavian, or were simply an assessment of the situation based on other information related to Antony’s intentions, can no longer be determined. Puteoli The next letter in which Octavius is mentioned, helps to clarify some points. Firstly, with regard to the name Cicero chose to use when referring to Octavian as Octavius. With regard to the earlier letters it could be argued that Cicero chose not to use any part of Octavian’s adopted name, because he had not heard any definite report that Octavian was going to accept the adoption. This was clearly not the case by the 19th. Yet he still chose then, and in the 11 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 564. (XIV. 6). Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 570. (XIV. 10). 13 Gruen, Last Generation, p. 117. Jones, Augustus, p. 12. 14 Syme, Roman Revolution, pp. 501 – 502. 15 Syme, Roman Revolution, pp. 114, 131. 16 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 594 (XIV. 21). 17 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 570. (XIV. 10). 12 4 subsequent letters of the 21st and 22nd of April, to refer to Octavian as Octavius.18 And in the letter of the 22nd, he makes a brief, but pretentious statement regarding this. In this letter, Cicero reports that the followers of ‘Octavius’ refer to him as Caesar, but adds that Philippus, does not. This refusal by Philippus is presented to account for his own refusal to use the name Octavian.19 Philippus, as already noted, was Octavian’s step-father prior to the adoption. And Philippus was opposed to Octavian’s accepting the adoption and inheritance. His refusal to call Octavian by the name of Caesar can then be seen as simply a continuation of this opposition. That, of course, is the same reason which I have argued motivated Cicero. The way Cicero justifies himself in this letter, however, implies that he is, in a sense, equating himself with Philippus. And in this equation, I would suggest, Cicero was raising himself, at least in his own estimation, to the position of being almost a father to Octavian, albeit a disapproving one. Such an estimation is confirmed by consideration of some of Cicero’s other comments in these two letters. In the letter of the 22nd, Octavian’s attitude to Cicero is described as “most respectful and friendly.”20 By itself, this might not be significant. But in association with Cicero’s description of Octavian as being “quite devoted to me” in the previous letter of the 21st,21 it is not at all out of keeping with how a man who saw himself in a paternal role to someone much younger than himself, might choose to describe that person’s attitude to him. Yet if paternal is a reasonably accurate way to describe Cicero’s attitude to Octavian, it should not be taken to involve much, if any actual affection or concern. On the contrary, while acknowledging, and probably inflating “the boy’s” affection for him, Cicero is careful to present himself as disinterested with a typically hasty and arbitrary judgement, to the effect that he (Octavian) “cannot be a good citizen”. This is not because he can find anything wrong in Octavian’s character, itself, but because “there are too many around him”.22 There is a curious feature to the movements of Balbus at this time. As revealed by these letters, Balbus’ movements were as follows. Balbus met with Octavian in Naples on the 19th. Later that day went to Cumae, where he spoke to Cicero. There is nothing in the letter, though, to suggest that Balbus deliberately sought Cicero out in Cumae, to discuss his meeting with Octavian. Rather, it could almost have been a chance encounter, since the subject of the visit rates only a single sentence in the course of the letter.23 (If Shackleton Bailey is correct in identifying the “Baiae characters” mentioned in a letter dated to the 16th of April, as Balbus, Hirtius and Pansa,24 then it may be that Balbus simply called on Cicero on his way back to Baiae from Naples. Balbus was certainly in the area at the time, since he visited Cicero in Puteoli, between Cumae and Naples, on the 17th.25 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, pp. 570 – 572. (XIV. 10 – 12). Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 572. (XIV. 12). 20 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 572. (XIV. 12). 21 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 572 (XIV, 12). 22 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p.572 (XIV, 12) (Hence the need to analyse closely those around him, Dr B. W. Jones.) 23 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p.570 (XIV,10) 24 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 567 n. 913. Hirtius and Pansa were already consul designates for 43, Syme, Roman Revolution, p. 95and n. 1. 25 Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 568 (XIV, 9). 18 19 5 On the 21st, Balbus, Hirtius and Pansa were all in Puteoli, if the identification of that city as the point of despatch for the letter sent on that day (Bailey seems to have some reservations), with Cicero. Octavian had arrived and had then gone on to his step-father’s house, which was sited next to Cicero’s. It can be inferred from this letter with reasonable safety, that Octavian met Cicero before he went to Philippus’ house. It is probable, therefore, that he also exchanged at least greetings with Balbus, Hirtius and Pansa. The tone of the letter, though, which compresses to a single sentence Octavian’s arrival and his going to his step-father’s house, suggests that the visit to Cicero can only have been brief, a mere courtesy call to pay his respects.26 Nor do we have any indication from the letter that the three Caesarians were going to confer with Octavian later.27 It could be argued that they later had a secret one meeting with Octavian. In that respect I do not think that it is reasonable to suggest that Cicero simply neglected to mention such a meeting. If it took place between the 21st and 22nd and Cicero knew about it, it should have been mentioned in his letter of the 22nd. Cicero was not averse to relating matters concerning Octavius and the others in his correspondence, as should be apparent from the letters that have been examined so far. If, on the other hand, the matter was referred to in a letter of somewhat latter date which has not been passed down to us, than any speculation on such a meeting can only be guess work. But on the issue of whether such a secret meeting actually took place, one question must be asked. If they wanted to confer privately with Octavian, why do it in Puteoli? Not only was Cicero staying there at the time, but the house where Octavian was to stay was right next door to Cicero’s? There is really very little sense to having a ‘secret’ meeting there. There must have been other places where they could have met, at Naples, or at Baiae, which would have been more discrete. Moreover, Balbus appears to have been quite willing to discuss with Cicero his meeting with Octavian in Naples. This makes questionable the suggestion that Balbus should have subsequently felt it necessary to keep any later meeting secret. What this means, I believe, is that we have little indication here, of Octavian as yet establishing for himself a secure power base within the Caesarian party. Consequently, Syme’s assertions in this regard, must be regarded as unproven. What then were Balbus, Hirtius and Pansa doing in Campania at this time? There is one fact that argues against the idea that they were meeting with Octavian. Octavian probably spent at least two whole days in Naples, since we know he arrived on the 18th but did not reach Puteoli, less than 10 miles away, till the 21st. Balbus only stayed in Naples for part of the 19th. We have no indication that Hirtius and Pansa were there, let alone stayed there. Consequently, it is quite possible that when Balbus travelled from Naples to Cumae, he was making his way back to Baiae to report his meeting with Octavian to them. Octavian may well have been conferred with someone in Naples, but the identity of that person(s) must remain a mystery. As a solution, and it can only be a tentative one, I would suggest that what the three were doing was literally spying on Octavian: not in the melodramatic sense of rifling his correspondence and bribing his servants, but simply through their own observations and those of their agents. Their purpose was probably quite simple and understandable. They wanted to see how Octavian was reacting to his new situation, and how he handled himself and those around 26 27 Just long enough for Cicero form the opinion that Octavian was devoted to him Cicero, Letters to Atticus, p. 571 (XIV, 11). 6 him. To them, Octavian must have been something of an unknown element. He was Caesar’s heir, and may have expected political favour. But the hereditary passing on of political power in Rome had yet to be instituted. And even if the three thought that Caesar had been training Octavian for political power, the training could not be regarded as complete. After all, it had not been part of Caesar’s plans to be assassinated. Whether, however, they were acting purely on their own initiative and for their own benefit, or for others, cannot be determined. But there is no real need to see their actions as being performed for anyone but themselves. Tarracinda We hear no more of Octavian’s trip to Rome from Cicero after the 22nd of April. Appian, however, does provide a couple of additional details. He notes that some of the towns Octavian passed through were “not altogether favourable to him”. He adds that Caesar’s veterans from the nearby colonies, “flocked from their settlements” to meet him. The veterans are described as bewailing Caesar, cursing Antony for not avenging his death, and vowing to do so themselves “if anybody would lead them.” The tact with which Octavius handled this offer is to be noted, as Octavian took care to praise the veterans before diplomatically deferring acceptance of the offer. More importantly, having done this, Octavian took care to “send them away.28 This argues against the idea that Caesar’s veterans formed a significant of Octavian’s entourage, on the march to Rome. It would have been some time after he departed from Cicero’s company, “when he had arrived at Tarracinda”. There he heard that Cassius and Brutus had been deprived of their original provinces and had them replaced with Cyrenaica and Crete. And he also heard that some exiles, including Sex. Pompeius, had been recalled, as well as other news.29 It is unfortunate that Appian did not, or could not, relate how Octavian reacted to this news. Appian does, however, provide one believable insight into Octavian’s feelings at this time. He states that, although Octavian felt safe from any open attacks with the accompanying crowd, their presence made him fear secret attacks even more.30 Clearly, he still felt quite insecure in his position. IN ROME Arrival in Rome Yavetz takes the date of Octavian’s arrival in Rome to have been the 11th of May, 44.31 While he cites no evidence to support this conclusion, it is not hard to deduce that he probably derived the date from the next reference Cicero makes to Octavian in his correspondence. In this letter, or rather letters,32 to Atticus dated 11 May, Cicero sought news of a speech he expected Octavian to have made. From what Cicero knew at the time, Mark Antony’s younger brother, L. Antonius, had arranged for Octavian to be brought before a public meeting.33 L. Antonius was a 28 Appian Civil Wars III. 12. Appian Civil Wars III. 12. 30 Appian Civil Wars III. 12. 31 Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps, p. 73. 32 Since there are two to Atticus of that date. 33 Cicero Letters to Atticus, pp.593-594 (XIV.20, 21). 29 7 Tribune of the Plebs in 44, and it would have been on the authority of that position that Antonius would have called the people together to hear Octavian speak.34 However as will shortly be made clear, a study of the evidence for Octavian’s early activities in Rome argues that the speech Cicero was interested in, dates to sometime after Octavian’s arrival in Rome. Leaving aside the apocryphal story of a haloed sun crowning his entry into the city,35 the arrival of Octavian in Rome appears to have proceeded in a relatively quiet manner. Dio relates that he entered the city as “a private citizen with only a few attendants”.36 Such a policy accords well with the similar manner in which Octavian subsequently approached Antony, as related by Appian in particular.37 A significant feature of Octavian’s arrival, which Appian regards as a show of contempt on Antony’s part, is that Antony neither went to meet “Caesar’s son”, himself, nor sent anyone to meet him in his place.38 (Velleius, in his account, has Octavian greeted by “an enormous crowd of his friends as he approached Rome. Velleius, however, associates the crowd greeting Octavian directly with his account of the haloed sun, which he elaborates upon at some length.39 Whereas Dio views the halo as a portent of coming confusion,40 to Velleius it is a symbol of Octavian’s coming greatness. The ‘enormous crowd’ should therefore be regarded in the same manner, as a symbol, and rather than an historical fact, especially since we lack any supporting evidence in other accounts. The more so since Dio actually contradicts this part of the story.41) It appears that Octavian’s first act upon arriving in Rome, was to go and see his mother and step-father. This was done to reassure them that he was not about to do anything rash, and to also offer some justification for his decision to reject their advice and accept his inheritance.42 If Appian is to be believed, in the case of his mother, he succeeded beyond hope.43 That night Octavian sent messages to his friends to ask them to come to the forum early the next day, and to “bring a crowd with them”. On the morning after his arrival, Octavian presented himself to Antony’s brother Gaius, the urban praetor, to announce before witnesses his intention to accept his adoption. Such an action was simply in accord with Roman legal custom. And though the number of witnesses Octavian seems to have arranged may have been exceptional, this was nonetheless in keeping with the magnitude of the estate to which he was heir.44 34 Cicero Letters to Atticus, Glossary of Persons, p. 675. Dio XLV.4.4. Velleius Paterculus II.lix.6. 36 Dio.XLV.5.2. 85. Appian Civil Wars, III.13 37 Appian Civil Wars, III.13 38 Appian Civil Wars, III.13 39 Velleius Paterculus II.lix.6. (To quote my then Supervisor’s earlier comments in Part 1, p. 9. (*Be careful of Velleius – he was a stout propagandist for the dynasty. Dr B. W. Jones.) 40 Dio XLV.4.4. 41 Dio XLV.5.2. Dio’s version is much later than other sources, which means he would have been under far less pressure to present Octavian’s arrival in a favourable manner. Nor can I conceive of any reasonable reason for Dio to present Octavian as acting in so modest a manner. 42 Appian Civil Wars, III.13. Velleius Paterculus II. ix. 1-2 43 Appian Civil Wars, III.14. According to Appian, after Octavian spoke to her “his mother’s anxiety was changed to joy”, and she offered him her own counsel on how best to achieve his ends. 44 Appian Civil Wars, III.14. 35 8 With those formalities accomplished, Octavian went to call upon Mark Antony “in the gardens that Caesar had given him”.45 If we can accept the chronological details of Appian’s account this happened on the same day, straight after Octavian left the forum.46 However, on this point, there is a potential problem because, in the view of some, Antony appears to have been absent from Rome at the time of Octavian’s arrival. Anthony’s Movements To Syme, the matter is quite clear cut. Antony departed from Rome about April 21st and was absent for a month.47 Ker, in the introduction to his translation of Cicero’s first Philippic, is equally explicit. Antony left Rome about the middle of April and did not return until the middle of May.48 On the surface, this would argue that Appian’s chronology is incorrect, and that the meeting with Antony took place sometime after Octavian arrived in the city. An examination of the evidence on which the conclusions of Syme and Ker was probably based, reveals that our knowledge of Antony’s movements is not as clear cut as they make it appear. The starting point for such an examination is the date Syme gives for Antony’s departure from Rome, April 21st. Unfortunately, Syme gives no indication of what the evidence was he derived this date from, or what prompted him to suggest it. But it is neither hard, nor unreasonable to guess that so specific a date was derived from Cicero’s correspondence. Confirmation is not hard to find, though it comes in an unexpected form. And the evidence it offers in regard to Syme’s conclusions is of a negative kind. On about 22 April, Antony sent a letter to Cicero from Rome. For Antony’s movements, the letter tells us nothing beyond the fact that Antony was in Rome on about the 22nd.49 The real basis for the view that Antony was absent from Rome in April and May, seems to be a statement – a sarcastic statement – in Cicero’s second Philippic. This refers to Antony’s “splendid excursion” “in the month of April and also of May”.50 The reference gives no indication, however, of how much of each month was spent on the excursion. Moreover, the nature of this reference, coming as it does in a speech that vehemently denounces Antony, is not such as to inspire one with any confidence in Cicero’s regard for detail. The matter can be clarified somewhat by considering what Antony was doing on this ‘excursion’. Firstly, it is clear that Antony had two concerns that apparently made it necessary for him to leave Rome at this time. The one Cicero bothers to detail in the second Philippic was the distribution of land to veterans and others.51 His other concern was in regard to the veterans in colonies already established. On this point we have a direct statement in one of Cicero’s letters to Atticus that Antony was “going the rounds of the veterans”.52 On the first concern, it seems to me unlikely that Antony, the consul, would have bothered to involve himself too closely with the details of the land distribution; certainly not to such an extent as to take him away from Rome for a month. Most matters, surely, would be left to the care of various agents. And we know the names of some of these, Caesennius Lento and Nucula. Previously, Pompey’s Gardens. Appian Civil Wars, III.14. Velleius Paterculus II. lx.2 – 3. Appian Civil Wars, III.14. 47 Syme, Roman Revolution, p. 111. 48 Cicero Phillipics (tr. W.C.A, Ker) pp.11 – 14. 49 Cicero Letters to Atticus, p.576 (XIV.13A) 50 Cicero Philippics II. xxxix. 100. 51 Cicero Philippics II. xxxix. 100 – xl. 102. 52 Cicero Letters to Atticus, p.594 (XIV.21) 45 46 9 And it would seem from Cicero, that these were but two of a body of seven men assigned to distribute public land.53 It might be expected, though, that Antony could feel a need to leave the city in exceptional circumstances, where his agents found situations they could not deal with themselves. And there is some evidence this may indeed have been the case. On the third of May Cicero stated in a letter to Atticus, after saying he only wished he might meet Antony, that Antony was not expected “to turn aside from Capua”.54 It is also clear from the second Philippic that Antony not only went to Capua in person, but had considerable difficulties in his dealings with that city’s inhabitants.55 Prior to this letter of the third, there were no indications in Cicero’s letters of when, or if, Antony had left the city after the 22nd of April. As well, the wording in the letter of the third is sufficiently vague to leave open the possibility that Cicero was speaking figuratively rather than literally when he wrote of Antony not being expected to turn aside from Capua. What this suggests is that it is possible Antony did not actually leave Rome until very late in April or perhaps early May. If so, Cicero was using poetic licence when he spoke of Antony’s movements in the months of April and May, implying Antony’s actual presence in what was largely the activities of his agents. Taking this interpretation into consideration, it then becomes possible to reconcile Appian's account with the evidence of Antony’s movements in Cicero’s letters and the Philippics. This makes it quite possible that Octavian arrived in Rome and met with Antony before the latter left the city, most likely in late April. The other issue to consider is the ‘other’ business that took Antony away from Rome. Cicero says he was told by Balbus that Antony was “going the rounds of the veterans to get them to stand by Caesar’s measures and take an oath to that effect, instructing them all to keep their arms ready”. The letter is dated to the 11th of May.56 In another letter to Atticus dated to the same date, Cicero reported that Antony visited Misenum while he (Cicero) was at Pompeii. From the letters this could have been anytime between the 3rd and the 10th of May.57 But Antony left there before Cicero had had time to hear of his arrival.58 The reference to Capua in the letter of the 3rd noted above, makes it at least likely that Antony visited Misenum sometime after the 3rd. The dating of the letters provides at least one reason for regarding Antony’s ‘going the rounds’ as having occurred after the business of land division had begun. A second, and better reason, is to be derived from a consideration of what may have prompted Antony to pay call on the veterans. Cicero notes in the second Philippic, that one of the cities at which Antony had a colony founded was Casilinum.59 It may not be a mere co-incidence that Casilinum was one of the towns where Octavian was reported by Cicero to have won the veterans over to his ‘views’ in November.60 Casilinum had already had some of Broughton, Magistrates II, Year 44 Special Commissions, pp. 332 – 333. Cicero Philippics VIII. ix. 26. Philippics XI. vi. 13. Philippics XII. ix. 23. Philippics XIII. xii. 26. 54 Cicero Letters to Atticus, p.584. (XIV.17). 55 Cicero Letters to Atticus, p.584. (XIV.17). 56 Cicero Letters to Atticus, pp.593 - 594 (XIV.21). 57 Cicero Letters to Atticus, pp.593 - 594 (XIV.21). 58 Cicero Letters to Atticus, p.591 (XIV.20). 59 Cicero Philippics II. xi. 102. 60 Cicero Letters to Atticus, pp.655 – 656 (XVI. 8). 53 10 Caesar’s veterans settled on it a few years before and it would seem from Cicero that Antony was trying to establish a new colony there, of, it would seem, questionable legality.61 Such an action may have induced some discontent among the colonists already established, which could have made it easier for Octavian to win their support. It is not at all unlikely, though, that Casilinum was one of the colonies from which Caesar’s veterans ‘flocked’ to welcome Octavian.62 I would suggest that what happened was that when Antony’s agents arrived at Casilinum, perhaps not long after Octavian’s trip to Rome, they heard of the veterans’ actions, and of their call for Caesar to be avenged and of their cursing of Antony for his inaction, and reported it to Antony. It would be quite natural for Antony, then, on hearing this news, whether he was in Rome or at Capua, to decide it would be diplomatic to pay a personal visit to the various colonies of Caesar’s veterans for the purposes of easing some of the discontent and strengthening his own support. This action, however, could not, in this case, have been begun until after his agents had begun their work. It is therefore not necessary to date the interview between Octavian and Antony to the middle of May, after Antony had returned to Rome, as Syme does.63 The evidence of Cicero and Appian do not necessarily conflict. And this means there is no good reason to reject Appian’s statement that Octavian saw Antony on the same day that he presented himself before the city praetor to accept the adoption. It is plain from the surviving accounts of the meeting that Antony and Octavian did not part from each other’s company on amicable terms.64 A Brief Encounter This brings us back to the issue of Octavian’s meeting with Antony the day after he arrived in Rome. Since Antony was in Campania by 3 May, we can date Octavian’s arrival in Rome to late April. As noted above, on the day of the meeting Octavian first presented himself to the Urban Praetor – Antony’s brother Gaius – in the Forum. There he formally accepted before witnesses his adoption as Caesar’s son. There is no suggestion in the text that Octavian addressed the people at this time. Instead he went straight away to see Mark Antony in the former gardens of Pompey, where he was kept waiting for some time in the vestibule.65 When Antony does come out Appian presents the exchange between the two as two long speeches. Considering the probable influence later propaganda had on the development of the stories of the meeting, it would be dangerous to put too much trust in the blame they lay, chiefly upon Antony, for the disagreement between the two. The issues under discussion, as Appian presents them, must also, for similar reasons, be treated with caution. As Appian presents the encounter, Octavian raised two essential topics in his speech. The first was a strong criticism of the manner in which Mark Antony had dealt with Caesar’s assassins. He effectively accused Antony of letting the assassins off any reprisals or prosecution even after Antony’s funeral oration had roused the anger of the populace against them.66 After 61 Cicero Philippics II. xi. 102. Appian Civil Wars, III .12. See under Tarracinda, above, p.17. 63 Syme, Roman Revolution, p.115. 64 Appian Civil Wars, III. 21. Velleius Paterculus II. lx. 2 – 3. 65 Appian Civil Wars, III.14. 66 Appian Civil Wars, III. 15 – 17. 62 11 that Octavian made a plea to Antony to release to Octavian the money Caesar had collected for his intended wars. He asked this in order to have the funds he needed to pay out Caesar’s legacy to the people in accordance with the terms of Caesar’s will.67 Payment of this donative would have strengthened Octavian’s position with the Roman populous. And he may have expected that raising the issue in front of witnesses, at least in his own retinue, would make it harder for Antony to decline the request without damaging his own support. Yet that, according to Appian, is just what happened, with Antony speaking at length to justify his position on both issues.68 Octavian’s complaint was rebutted and his request refused. In response, according to Appian, Octavian left the meeting angry, and determined to pay the donative to the people himself by selling all the property that had come to him through the inheritance.69 From what happened subsequently, it is safe to assume that the issue of the donative was raised at this meeting. Nevertheless, the speeches of Octavian and Antony in Appian, cannot be regarded as a true representation of the actual debate that took place. As with all such speeches reported by ancient historians, while the issues presented may reflect some content of the original speeches, the text as presented undoubtedly contain changes of emphasis, distortions, deletions, propaganda and just plain misrepresentation, as well as some possible anachronisms. The ‘speeches’ in Appian read more like a direct argument between Octavian and Antony, here presented by Appian as public speeches for rhetorical effect. Velleius says that Antony “grudgingly” granted Octavian just “a few moments conversation”.70 While Velleius is not often the most reliable of sources, on this point at least he was probably correct. Mark Antony was one of the Consuls, while Octavian was an untried youth with no authority beyond his adoptive name and inheritance. This was a private meeting. There were no speeches. Octavian and Antony parted in disagreement. Antony must have left Rome soon after on his mission to Campania. Octavian’s passage through the territory on his way to Rome had stirred up demands for justice over Caesar’s assassination, from the established veterans’ communities there. Antony needed to already appease and contain their anger, at least for the time being. No surprise, he dealt with Octavian so curtly. Octavian left the meeting bearing his own grievances. And this marks the beginning of the first rift between Octavian and Antony. Antony and the Veterans Regarding Antony’s movements at this time, one further point needs to be considered. This concerns Antony’s instructions to the veterans, already noted above, to “keep their arms ready and have them inspected monthly by the colonial magistrate”.71 On the surface, this seems to be a rather strange instruction. It carries the implication that, on the one hand, Antony wanted the veterans to be ready for combat. But it also suggests he did not want them to expect to be called to duty any time soon. It is unlikely Antony, at this point, was expecting to need to make any 67 300,000 men, according to Appian. Appian Civil Wars, III. 17. Appian Civil Wars, III. 18 – 20. 69 Appian Civil Wars, III. 21. 70 Velleius Paterculus II. lx. 3. 71 Cicero Letters to Atticus, p. 594 (XIV. 21). 68 12 military use of the veterans. And if he was, it is difficult to see who he thought he might need to use them against. At that time his political position was strong. And it could be argued he had little to fear in the near future from the assassins. Nor is it likely that it was fear of Octavian that prompted him to seek the support of the veterans, especially when the veterans were the troops most likely to favour Octavian. Octavian’s connections with the veterans do suggest a solution. It has already been noted that, in the course of his journey to Rome, the veterans came to greet Octavian. They were cursing Antony for failing to avenge Caesar. And they were offering their support to Octavian or any other who would lead them to the achievement of their goal of avenging Caesar.72 As well, as I have already argued, reports of these veterans’ actions and complaints were what probably prompted Antony to make the rounds of the veterans when he did. Consideration of this point makes it quickly apparent that such reports must have been a source of considerable concern to Antony. The veterans were showing themselves to be a potentially dangerous and volatile military force who had thrown their services open to virtually anybody. And they had a distinct hostility to Antony, himself. It is not surprising, therefore, that Antony should feel it necessary to do something to reduce the hostility and the pressure for violent action that was clearly building in the veterans. The steps Balbus reports him taking, on reflection, can be seen as designed to do just that. Firstly, he urged them to stand by Caesar’s measures, and had them take an oath to that effect. In this way Antony could be seen to be saying to them, “I am still loyal to the memory of Caesar”. In telling them to keep their arms ready, he was leaving in their minds the implication that they could expect to have to use them soon, and that he would be leading them. In this way he had subtly committed himself to them and to their cause. Then, by adding that they should have their arms inspected monthly, he was able to make it clear to them that action could not be taken just yet. Instead, it would have to be deferred for a time to be measured in months at least. If this injunction was successful; and unfortunately we have no indication of how successful it was;73 such an approach would have consolidated Antony’s position with the veterans. It would have healed past breeches, and offered them a leader and champion of their cause in Antony, himself. In so doing he would have reduced the risk that some other leader might take up their offer and win their support. In this, Antony’s position as consul would have helped. This would give the men the hope that by following Antony their actions would have at least a semblance of legality. At the same time his words did not commit him to any real action, since all he has told them to do was keep their arms in order. As well, by implying that action would have to wait till sometime in the future, he suggested to them that they should leave the matter in his capable hands for the present. In this, Anthony would have had the likely, and reasonable, expectation that if he waited long enough, the hostility would dissipate. In which case he would not have to take any action at all. It is, therefore, not necessary to regard Antony’s visit to the veterans as indicative of Antony contemplating belligerent actions against any particular party or individual at this time. (Propaganda surely – Dr B. W. Jones.) Although the fact that in November Octavian felt it at least helpful to give the veterans at Casilinum and Calatia a donative of 500 denarii apiece to win them to his cause may be an indication that Antony was not completely unsuccessful. Cicero Letters to Atticus, p. 656 (XVI. 8). 72 73 13 Octavian’s First Speech According to Appian, a senatorial investigation of the public accounts began almost immediately after the verbal exchange between Octavian and Antony.74 Appian had already presented Antony as putting off Octavian’s request for money on the excuse that Caesar’s assets contained much public revenue. And the prospect that there would also be a vote to hold such an investigation, is directly mentioned in Antony speech in reply to Octavian.75 There does not appear to be any other supporting evidence for the existence of this senatorial investigation although Appian does make later reference to lawsuits laid against Octavian by ‘many persons’ for the recovery of ‘landed property’.76 Antony had also foreshadowed the prospect of such legal actions in his speech,77 so it is a not unlikely development. On these issues chronology remains the key problem, and the matters will be discussed in more depth shortly. From the evidence previously considered we know that the speech by Octavian Cicero asked Atticus about on 11 May, happened after Octavian’s public acceptance of his adoption and his subsequent meeting with Antony. By the 18th, Cicero had received sufficient news of the speech to make a passing comment on it to Atticus in another letter. But he tells us practically nothing about the speech itself, what prompted it, or the occasion of its delivery. “About Octavian’s speech I feel as you do.” It is a pity we do not have a copy of Atticus’ original letter. Still, Cicero’s letter does offer some clues. 78 Firstly, after dismissing Octavian’s speech, Cicero adds that he doesn’t “like the look of the preparations for his (Octavian’s) show”. This show was the “Games given by Octavian 20 – 30 July in Caesar’s honour.”79 If Octavian was already making preparations for these games at this early date then it suggests the financial difficulties noted above that followed on from his meeting with Antony, had been resolved. Either that, or by then he had reason to believe that such as resolution was imminent. Earlier in that same letter, Cicero mentions that he has learnt from Atticus and others that Antony’s brother Lucius “has made a vile speech”, although he doesn’t know the details of this speech.80 This is interesting because we know from Cicero’s earlier letter that Cicero expected Lucius to be the one who brought Octavian forward to speak at a public meeting. 74 Appian Civil Wars, III. 21. Appian Civil Wars, III. 20. 76 Appian Civil Wars, III. 22. 77 Appian Civil Wars, III. 20. 78 Cicero Letters to Atticus, pp.599 – 600. (XV. 2). 79 “Games given by Octavian 20 – 30 July in Caesar’s honour.” Cicero also says he does not like Octavian’s choice of Caesarian agents for the staging of these games; C. Matius and M. Curtius Postumus. Cicero Letters to Atticus (tr. D. R. Shackleton bailey) p. 600, n. 975, p. 686 and p. 696. 80 Cicero Letters to Atticus, p.599. (XV. 2). Cicero had previously described an earlier, unspecified, speech by Lucius as “appalling”. Letters to Atticus, p.591. (XIV. 20). 75 14 Given that L. Antonius was one of the Tribunes of the Plebs, it is reasonable to expect that he had organised the meeting at which Octavian spoke in the capacity of his position as Tribune. If so, then the meeting was presumably a Tribune’s assembly, comitia plebis tributa. 81 If Octavian was given permission to make his claims directly to the Plebeian Assembly, Cicero tells us nothing of what came of this. Did Octavian simply use the occasion just to tell the people about the Games he was planning to hold? Did he promise to honour the terms of Caesar’s will as far as the donative to the people was concerned, even at his own expense? Or did he make a direct appeal to the people to demand Antony pay the donative directly from Caesar’s estate? If he did move a motion to make Antony release the funds for the donative, did Lucius speak against it and veto the motion? And if Lucius was speaking against Octavian, why would Cicero be so troubled by his words as to refer to them as a “vile speech”? Or was the meeting about another matter entirely? Was this the occasion where Octavian publically voiced his other complaint against Antony – that Antony had let the assassins off without any reprisals or prosecution? This makes more sense, especially if Octavian had been persuaded by then to shift the focus of his anger away from Antony and back to the assassins. In such circumstances Lucius and Octavian would be speaking to a common cause in keeping the fire of popular outrage over Caesar’s murder burning. Such talk would naturally incense Cicero. Lucius would naturally bear the brunt of Cicero’s anger because such talk ran contrary to the compromise Antony had previously put forward in the Senate that granted amnesty to the assassins.82 Octavian’s words will have mattered less to Cicero, since he still regarded the boy as inconsequential. And Octavian may also have tempered his words to keep his options open. We simply do not know. To better understand these events, we have to look to what happened next. 81 Oxford Classical Dictionary 2nd Edit., (Edit. N. G. L. Hammond & H. H. Scullard), Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1970, p. 1092. See also Taylor, Lily Ross, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1949, p. 60. 82 Plutarch Antony 14. 15