Marcus Agrippa: Right-hand Man of Caesar Augustus (53 page)

Secondly, he believed that great art placed in the urban landscape was essential to the spiritual health of the community. This stood in stark contrast to, for example, M. Antonius who in the aftermath of Iulius Caesar’s murder secreted away the
dictator
’s fine collection of artworks to locations where only he could enjoy them. The source of Agrippa’s public spiritedness is not known, but it was manifestly a cornerstone of his personal philosophy. Pliny belittled Agrippa’s taste for rustic simplicity over what he considered refinement in art, but in saying so he overlooked that Augustus’ own taste was also for the unfussy.
³²
However, if the villa under the Farnesina in Rome and the villa at Boscotrecase in Campania are indeed Agrippa’s properties, their interior decorations suggest sophistication and restraint appealed to the owner’s taste. The emphasis is on fine composition and quality of execution. These were the same attributes Agrippa brought to his public works. Thus, great paintings he selected himself and imported from Kyzicus were displayed at the
Saepta
, new thematic commissions decorated the ceiling of his baths, some of the best sculptures of Lysippos populated his baths and park, and the statues of the leading contemporary artist Diogenes of Athens decorated his Pantheon – all for the enjoyment of the public.

He was a consummate manager. Karl Galinsky writes, ‘Agrippa’s abilities were, and are, unquestioned,’ and David Stockton that he was ‘immensely capable.’
³³
The ability to plan, organize and manage resources in achieving specific objectives, which Agrippa ably demonstrated in war – such as building
Portus Iulius
, procuring and equipping ships and training their crews – he brought to civil administration and construction projects. ‘In whatever he did he knew no such thing as delay, but with him action went hand in hand with conception,’ writes Velleius Paterculus.
³⁴
Concerning Agrippa’s management style it can be said he used a combination of methods. When faced with mutiny among the legions in Cantabria he used both admonishments and encouragements – the proverbial ‘sticks and carrots’ – to bring about a change of morale and reinstate discipline. He also engaged in a form of what modern management consultants would call Management by Wandering About (MBWA).
³⁵
Surveying his life one is struck by the sheer number of trips he undertook by land and sea (
Appendix 2
). He was rarely in one place for long. Through travel he met officials of cities he visited, providing for him the opportunity to question and motivate, while for those he met it put a human face on the administration in far-away Rome and allowed them the opportunity to present their views. This way he built robust networks of contacts, with client kings such as Herodes of Iudaea or Polemon of Bithynia et Pontus, as well as his own organization of legates in the far-flung provinces he was responsible for, such as Iulius Antonius in the East, or C. Furnius in the West. Building trust with these men, who were responsible for maintaining local security, was essential in an age when the outcome of decisions taken in response to a crisis might not be known for days owing to the limitations of the available communications systems. Precisely because he nurtured good personal relations he was able to arrange for Polemon to go to the Cimmerian Bosporus, while calling on assistance from Herodes before going himself. Both men responded unquestioningly to the instructions issued by Agrippa because they knew and respected him. He also set examples for others to follow. He believed in hard work (
industria
) and he pushed himself relentlessly. He was always consumed in activity – ‘unconquerable by toil, loss of sleep or danger’, writes Velleius Paterculus.
³⁶
He pushed others too. To the building of
Portus Iulius
he brought not only organization and methods, but he also injected urgency into the project. He had high standards of himself and he demanded them of others. For Agrippa, excellence lay in the details. On occasions he could be a micro-manager. He was a regular visitor to construction sites to check on progress. Despite its rank subterranean tunnels, he nevertheless personally inspected the
Cloaca Maxima
, checking the repairs himself from a boat.

He appreciated technical innovation and was himself an innovator. To give his marines a tactical advantage in battle, he installed on all his warships the collapsible version of the standard turret of his own invention, and the
harpax
, an existing weapon upon which he improved. Recognizing a problem of counting laps at the
Circus Maximus
he conceived of the simple but effective ‘dolphin and egg’ signalling system. The
Thermae Agrippae
was the first large-scale integrated bathing and fitness complex in Rome made available for mass public use. It changed the way Romans bathed and was imitated by emperors, from Nero to Diocletian, who competed to build ever larger and more elaborate establishments. His map of the world condensed all contemporary geographical and topographical knowledge in a single document which was displayed on a wall in a building and became a famous landmark for centuries.

Rewards and recognitions are key performance motivators for executives today. Unlike many men of his time, however, Agrippa does not appear to have been motivated by the showy displays normally granted to successful commanders as public recognition. The acclamatory ‘IMP’ is rarely shown after his name, leaving his friend to promote his leadership position and uniquely use it as his
praenomen
. He was accorded triumphal honours – for squashing rebellions in Aquitania in 39 BCE and Cantabria in 19 BCE – yet on both occasions he politely refused them. His response would have seemed decidedly odd to his contemporaries – even perverse. They craved such public honours and the fame it brought them. Noting this behaviour, Dio writes:

This trait of personal restraint (
moderatio
) greatly appealed to Augustus. He was himself generally recognized as ‘most temperate and without even the suspicion of any fault’.
³⁸
It is significant that the man Augustus chose to be his next ‘fixer in chief’ after his friend’s death was Ti. Claudius Nero, a man known for the same quality. In other ways Tiberius was like Agrippa too: cautious, disciplined, pragmatic and committed to getting his assignment done. Unlike Agrippa, however, he did accept the triumphs awarded to him and the recognition each brought him. Agrippa seems to have been entirely content with his unique blue pennant award for winning Actium, the
corona navalis
for Naulochus and
corona muralis
for Cantabria. He was permitted to display these in public and his profile with one or both of the crowns frequently appeared on coins. He seems to have been entirely unimpressed by the superficial, a view which he also extended to poetic language.

He certainly understood the value of symbols and of ritual. He upheld religious traditions, taking a leading part in the lustration ceremony to bless his new fleet at
Portus Iulius
, willingly accepting membership of the Arval Brothers and
Quindecemviri
for himself, and sponsoring many rite-based games and festivals. The most important of these was the
Ludi Saeculares
of 17 BCE in which he played a prominent role on each of the three days. There is nothing in his life story to suggest that he was anything but a traditionalist in religious terms following the
mores maiorum
. He was skeptical of cults, however, expelling astrologers and charlatans when aedile and yet respectful of the ancient Jewish tradition. In seeking respite from the excruciating pain in his legs he made a point to visit the sacred shrines in Attica and Lesbos and made offerings to the gods to supplement the course of physical treatments he received indicating a level of personal belief in the old religion.

If personal restraint was Agrippa’s hallmark, it did not mean he could not respond emotionally. Cornelius Nepos’ description of his reaction to his father-in-law Atticus’ decision to commit suicide rather than suffer old age in pain has Agrippa ‘weeping over him, kissing him and entreating’ him not to do it.
³⁹
Suetonius also reveals that occasionally he could be impatient. The only time Agrippa is recorded as having a temper tantrum with his friend is over the matter of Augustus’ apparent favouring of M. Claudius Marcellus. When he learned that his wife Iulia had not been accorded the respect her status deserved by the people of Illium and that she was almost killed in a flash flood, he lashed out and imposed a punitive fine on the city. His reaction seems to be more than that of a man just exercising the duties of a husband. To the rumours of his wife’s infidelities he responded with evident ‘distress’, perhaps so much so that it negatively impacted his health.
⁴⁰
Yet for all the public and private burdens and stresses he bore over so many years, Agrippa is all the more admirable for his display of resilience and depth of character, traits the Romans called
firmitas
– tenacity or strength of mind.

His relationships with women were entirely normal. Compared to many of the men around him his family life never attracted scandal. Agrippa married three times. He only divorced the first two wives at the request of Augustus. By Iulia the Elder he had five children. He would seem to have genuinely loved her and was distressed by rumours of infidelities alleged against her. There is no suggestion that he was unfaithful to any of his wives – unlike his friend, around who stories of illicit liaisons swirled. Of his relationship with Livia Drusilla, the formidable wife of Augustus, there is nothing in the extant accounts. He certainly knew her – probably extremely well – and it can reasonably be assumed that they were on good terms.

The intriguing question is why Agrippa was prepared to always be the ‘No. 2’ in the partnership? Curiously, the historians of the ancient world never addressed this question. Perhaps it was unnecessary because Agrippa dealt with it in his own memoir, and the answer was common knowledge at the time. If so, as it is entirely lost to us, today we can only speculate on the reasons. First and foremost, it seems clear that Agrippa truly valued his friendship with Augustus. The importance of it to him should not be underestimated. Through his relationship Agrippa found purpose and respect. Theirs exemplified the benefits of a friendship based on virtue – the kind described by Cicero in his treatise on the subject:

It was a fraternal, even a sentimental, relationship. Valerius Maximus cites Agrippa as an example of a friendship (
amicitia
) that was steadfastly loyal but borne of happiness.
⁴²
At odds with the other sources, Pliny the Elder remarks that his life was cut short, in part because of ‘the grievous tyranny to which he was subjected by his father-in-law’.
⁴³
The evidence suggests Agrippa would never have seen the relationship in these negative terms. Everything points to the fact that Agrippa idolized his friend. Why, is a matter of pure speculation. Perhaps it was the fact that the equestrian Octavius had befriended the plebeian Agrippa at a low point in his life or when he was new to the city of Rome, respected him for who he was and, their bond strengthened in adversity, never abandoned him.
⁴⁴
Perhaps their personalities simply complemented each other, and their outlook on life was the same. In return for his friendship, Agrippa was ready and willing without hesitation to come to his friend’s assistance, regardless of the situation or distance or risk to himself. Thus, for Agrippa it was entirely natural to want to publicly demonstrate his friendship by naming his artificial harbour or an aqueduct after him, or by dedicating a statue of Augustus in his new Pantheon, erected at his own expense.
⁴⁵
While flattered by the proposed statue, Augustus refused it, for – wisely – he knew it was far too early to present himself to the Roman public as a divinity, but as Dio observes ‘so far from censuring him for it, [he] honoured them the more’.
⁴⁶

Agrippa earned a very special place in Augustus’ circle of friends. He had been there from the beginning and he outlasted the others. Seneca describes him as ‘the only person among those whom the civil wars raised to fame and power who prospered in his statecraft’.
⁴⁷
Among the senior figures of the late Republic, Cicero was murdered, M. Antonius died at his own hand and Sex. Pompeius was assassinated. Aemilius Lepidus was shunned and died in disgrace. L. Munatius Plancus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus defected from Antonius’ camp to join the Caesarians, but neither could be completely trusted. Among his peer group Agrippa was the ‘last man standing’. His advice proved more valuable to the young heir of Iulius Caesar than that offered by either Q. Iuventius or M. Modialius or Lucius [?] who disappear from the accounts just before the Mutinese War. He proved more loyal than Q. Salvidienus Rufus who had been one of the small group at Apollonia in 44 BCE, failed to defeat Sex. Pompeius at Scylae, and was later brought down by his own poor judgement when he approached M. Antonius offering to defect to him or was implicated in a plot to assassinate Augustus – who, on learning of it, without hesitation, condemned him to death. He simply outperformed M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus and T. Statilius Taurus – both good generals – during the Actian War, and M. Lollius in the Tres Galliae. Agrippa always put the interests of Augustus before his own. C. Cilnius Maecenas – the second most important man after Agrippa, who was crucial to maintaining support at Rome during the Civil War period, and fostered poets whose works sang the praises of Actium and of Augustus’ new age. Tacitus describes a meeting between the Emperor Nero and his advisor, in which Seneca is reported as saying,