1.[1]
Σεβαστός, Augustus, must be
understood. The word
was doubtless given in the context immediately preceding
the present opening sentence. The title was proposed
by Plancus and was ratified by the senate on January
16, 27 B.C. (CIL 12 p. 307, Suet., Aug. 7, 2; Dio 53,
16, 6-8; 20, 1; Liv., Epit. 134; Vell. 2, 91, 1; Flor. 2, 34;
Mon. Anc. 6, 16). Nicolaus attaches no significance of
divinity to the title, though Suetonius and Dio do so.
Verg., Ec. 1, 6; G. 1, 24-39, speaks of Octavian as divine,
but no attribute of divinity is mentioned in the Aeneid
with reference to Augustus.
[2]
Nicolaus does not necessarily infer that an imperial
cult existed at this period in Italy, and hence is not
at variance with Suet., Aug. 52; Dio 51, 20, where it is
stated that Augustus did not permit an imperial cult in
Italy, although he allowed temples to be erected to
‘Rome and Augustus’ in the provinces. See also H.
Heinen, Klio 11, pp. 139 ff.; W. S. Ferguson, Am. Hist. Rev.,
18, pp. 243 ff. J. Asbach, Rh. Mus., 37, p. 297, is mistaken
in reasoning that Augustus must have died before any
worship could have taken place. L. R. Taylor, Trans. Am.
Philol. Ass., 51, p. 124 suggests that whatever savored of
an imperial cult in Italy from 30 B.C. on, was in fact
simply a cult of the genius of the emperor (Dio 51, 19,
[Pg 70]
7; Ov., Fast. 2, 637; Hor., Od. 4, 5, 31-35).
[3]
Drusus’ expedition of 11 B.C. is probably alluded to
(Vell., 2, 97, 2-3; Suet., Aug., 21; Dio 35, 2, 4; Tac., Ann.,
2, 26, 12, 39). There is a noteworthy consonance between
the phrase of Nicolaus, ‘nor had they been subject within
the memory of any one’ and Mon. Anc., 5, 44,
‘Pannoniorum gentes quas ante
me principem populi Romani exercitus nunquam adiit.’
This may be due to the use by Nicolaus of Augustus’ memoirs.
[4]Adriatic.
[5]
Tiberius succeeded Agrippa as leader of expeditions
against the Pannonians (Mon. Anc., 30; Dio 54, 36, 2-3).
[6]
A remark of the excerptor is enclosed within the
parentheses.
2.[7]
Nicolaus employs the method of a Peripatetic in presenting
the order of events in the life of an individual.
(Leo, die Griech. Röm. Biogr., p. 190).
[8]
His family was from Velitrae (Suet., Aug., 1, 94; Dio
45, 1, 1). C. Octavius the father was praetor (Cic., Q.
frat. 1, 1, 7) and proconsul for Macedonia (Suet., Aug., 3;
CIL 6, 1311) and was only prevented by death from attaining
the consulship. (Cic., Phil., 3, 6, 15).
[9]
C. Octavius is characterized as rich by Velleius (2, 59).
[10]
C. Octavius died in 58 B.C. when his son was 4 years
old (Suet., Aug., 8).
[11]
One of those involved was C. Toranius, who had been
[Pg 71]
an aedile with the elder C. Octavius (CIL 6, 1311). He
was in due time proscribed by Augustus, (App., 4, 12; Suet.,
Aug., 27) so that Octavius’ remission of his claims and
apparent satisfaction with his remainder as expressed by
Nicolaus did not prevent a subsequent day of reckoning.
3.[12]
Nicolaus’ statement of Octavius’ age is not corroborated
by Suetonius (Aug. 8) nor by Quintilian (12, 6, 1)
who give Octavius’ age as 12 years when the oration was
given. Perhaps separate occasions are referred to by
Nicolaus and the other writers. If a closer agreement
is to be desired,
ἐννέα
could be altered to
ἕνδεκα
(Müller). Suetonius identifies this occasion with the
death of Octavius’ grandmother Julia, while Nicolaus
does not expressly do so. His mention of Julia’s death
in the following sentence, however, admits of the inference
that the one occurrence suggested the other to his
mind, and that there was therefore some connection between
them.
[13]
With a single exception the name Atia is written
Antia throughout the excerpt. She was C. Octavius’
second wife (Plut., Ant. 31) and was from Aricia (Cic.,
Phil., 3, 6, 16; Suet., Aug., 4).
[14]
Incorrect as the text stands. Valesius indicated
that L. Marcius Philippus’ ancestor, Q. Marcius Philippus,
was engaged not with Philip V of Macedonia but
[Pg 72] with his son
Perseus (CIL 1, p. 359). Either Nicolaus was misinformed, or
Φίλιππον
has been inserted in the text by attraction in place of
Περσέα. Cicero (Att.
12, 9) calls L. Philippus ‘son of Amyntas’ jokingly.
Amyntas was the father of the great Philip of Macedon.
Q. Philippus was actually in Macedonia during Philip’s
lifetime according to Livy (39, 48; 40, 2-3). The passage
in Nicolaus shows that the Marcii of Cicero’s day were
descended from the noble Marcii active during the 2nd
century B.C.
[15]
Octavius’ youth was spent in Rome and the vicinity
(Suet., Aug. 94).
[16]
One of the instructors was one Epidius (Suet., Rhet. 4).
For the question of his identification, see Schanz, Röm.
Lit. Gesch., 1, p. 290.
4.[17]
Beginning of 49 B.C.
[18]
L. Philippus had a country place near Cicero’s at
Astura (Cic., Att., 12, 16; 12, 18, 1).
[19]
On October 18, 48 B.C. (CIL 10, 8375; Dessau, Ins.
Lat. Sel., 108) since Octavius was born on September 23,
63 B.C., he was about 15 years old. Suetonius is correct
in Aug. 8 where he speaks of Octavius as in his
twelfth year, that is 11 years of age, and places the
assumption of the toga virilis 4 years later.
[20]
L. Domitius Ahenobarbus
was killed at Pharsalus (Cic., [Pg 73]
Phil., 2, 71; Caes., B. C., 3, 99; Suet., Nero, 2). Culex 26 and 27,
‘Octavi venerande’ and
‘sancte puer’ show that
this was addressed to Octavius after his election to
the office of pontifex; see Class. Philol. 15, p. 26.
[21]
The election of Octavius was, of course, at the request
of Julius Caesar.
[22]
That of pontifex (Cic., Phil., 5, 17; Vell., 2, 59).
[23]
Valesius took this to be a reference to a custom
prevalent in Rome in Cicero’s time. Foppish young men
and even senators were to be seen arrayed not in the
ordinary Roman, but in Eastern garb. See Cic., pro Rab.
Post., 10, 27, where, however, there is a slight corruption
of the text.
5.[24]
In the autumn of 47, if both consuls were present as Nicolaus says. The
Feriae Latinae were inaugurated in
49 (CIL 1, p. 440, Fasti Cos. Capitolini). The following
year, 48, Caesar was absent in the East, as was also the
case in 46 and 45. In 45 ‘a certain prefect’ conducted the
Feriae (Dio 43, 48) for Caesar was
then sole consul; in 48 and 46 the other consul was probably in charge.
For 48 this was Servilius Isauricus and
for 46, Lepidus.
[25] As
praefectus urbi. Nicolaus is correct
and the other authors are wrong. App., 3, 9; Dio 43, 51; Plin.,
N. H., 7, 147 say that Octavius became
magister equitum
in this year. Gardthausen,
Aug. und seine Zeit, p. 48,
[Pg 74] shows that there
is a possibility for confusion between the terms
praefectus urbi and
magister equitum in the
writings of the later Greek historians. The latter office
would be considerably too responsible for a youth of 16
years, while it is conceivable that the duties of
praefectus urbi, at least
during the period of the Feriae
when the city was almost entirely deserted, would not be
excessively onerous. Strabo 5, C. 229 and Dio 49, 42 show
that the practice of appointing youths for this office
was continued by Augustus.
[26]
The proper duty of the
praefectus urbi (CIL 2, 3387).
6.[27]
He started for Spain in April, 49 B.C. (Cic., Att. 10, 3a)
and in due time brought about the surrender of Afranius
(Caes., B. C., 1, 37-87; App. 2, 42; Dio 41, 22; Suet., Caes. 34;
75).
[28] Pharsalus,
August 9 (= June 7 corrected calendar) 48
B.C. (Caes., B. C., 3, 75-99; App. 2, 64-82; Dio 41, 51-63; CIL
12 p. 324).
[29] Referring to the
Bellum Alexandrinum. In point of fact,
Caesar left Egypt nominally free to be ruled by Cleopatra.
[30]
The Black Sea. The reference
is
to the battle at Zela
with Pharnaces, son of Mithradates, whom he overcame on
August 2/May 21, 47 B.C. (CIL 12 p. 244). This was the
occasion of the celebrated ‘veni vidi vici.’
[31] [Pg 75]
Caesar embarked at Lilybaeum on December 25, 47 B.C.
(Caes., B. Af., 2).
7.[32]
Caesar arrived July 29, 46 B.C. (Caes., B. Af. 98). The
decisive battle was Thapsus, April 6, reported in Rome
about April 20 (Cic., Fam. 9, 2).
[33]
It was Caesar’s practice to put to death any who fell
captive to him a second time (Dio 41, 62; 43, 17; 44, 45;
44, 46; Suet., Caes., 75). In describing the incident
which follows, however, Nicolaus seems to have exaggerated
the importance of Octavius’ exploit, for in every case of
similar circumstances Caesar allowed each of his subordinates
to secure the release of one prisoner. Dio 43,
12-13 says further that Caesar released Cato’s son and
‘most of the rest.’ Nicolaus evidently drew from Augustus’
personal memoirs of his youth for this portion of
the biography, and found it advantageous to emphasize
Octavius’ act at this juncture. For a contemporary commentary,
see Cic., Fam. 6, 13, 3, where Caesar is said to
be especially incensed at those involved in the African
disturbance, but that
with the lapse of time he seems
to have become more indulgent toward them.
[34]
This is the first indication that Agrippa was already
a companion of Octavius. See Sen., Epis., 15, 2, 46.
8.[35]
Caesar had 4 triumphs: for Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, and
Africa (Liv., Epit., 115; App., 2, 101; Dio 43, 19).
[36]
[Pg 76]
Octavius was, through his mother, grandson of Caesar’s
sister Julia. Suetonius (Caes. 83, 1) is explicit in
stating that Caesar’s will whereby Octavius was adopted
as Caesar’s son, was made on September 13, 45 B.C. Nicolaus
has here either anticipated this accepted date by
something more than a year, or else he had access to a
statement in Augustus’ memoirs to the effect that Octavius
knew of the existence of an earlier will in which he had
been made Caesar’s adopted son.
[37]
Nicolaus is probably referring to the
‘cognomen imperatoris’
and not to the
‘praenomen imperatoris.’
According to Dio 43, 44, the
‘praenomen imperatoris’
was not conferred upon Caesar until after the battle of Munda,
some seven months later. However, if Nicolaus felt any unusual
significance in the title
Imperator as here mentioned, we
have an indication that Caesar actually held the new title
prior to the date given by Dio. Suetonius (Caes. 76) including
‘praenomen imperatoris’ in a group
of various honors conferred upon Caesar, gives no date or correlative
occurrence in this connection. See McFayden, The History
of the Title Imperator under the Roman Empire, Chicago
1920, pp. 7 ff.
9.[38]
The plays and games (Cic., Fam. 12, 18, 2; Livy, Epit.,
115; Dio 43, 22-24; App. 2, 102; Plut., Caes., 55; Suet.,
Aug., 39; Vell. 2, 56) were given immediately after Caesar’s
[Pg 77]
dedication of the temple to Venus Genetrix on September
26, (= July 20 corrected calendar) 46 B.C. Augustus continued
these games annually as the
‘ludi Victoriae Caesaris’
on July 25. Vergil seems to have them in mind in writing Aeneid 5 and
Catalepton 14, see Class. Quart. 14,
p. 156. The
ludi Romani and
ludi Graeci were
given separately (Suet., Aug. 45; Tac., Annal. 14, 15). See also
CIL 6, 32323; Dessau, Ins. Lat., 5050, an account of the
Ludi Saeculares of 17 B.C. In addition
to the Theatre of Pompey, a temporary wooden stage was erected for the
ludi Latini in 46 B.C. as in 17 B.C.
(line 154 of the inscription).
[39]
The effects of the sunstroke were, however, apparently
lasting throughout Octavius’ life. He was unable to
withstand the Italian sun even in winter, and never
went out into the open without a hat (Suet., Aug., 82).
10.[40]
To Spain. He started apparently in November of
46 B.C. He was still in Rome on September 24 (Cic.,
Fam., 6, 14, 2). Nearly a month was consumed in his
journey thither (Strabo 3, 4, 9; App. 2, 103; Suet., Caes.,
56).
[41]
Sextus Pompeius had 11 legions in all. Caesar had
sent to Cicero in January, 45 B.C., a copy of a letter
which he had received from L. Vibius Paciaecus, one
of his subordinates in Spain who was in a position to
[Pg 78]
know, and who gave this figure (Cic., Fam., 6, 18, 2).
[42]
Seven months had not elapsed between Caesar’s departure
from Rome and the battle of Munda (March 17,
45 B.C.).
11.[43]
Carteia, on the Bay of Gibraltar. Octavius must
have arrived after the battle of Munda had taken place,
otherwise Nicolaus certainly would have mentioned his
presence at that encounter, Caesar’s last successful
one. Caesar wrote to Cicero from Hispalis, his next
stopping point (Caes., B. Hisp., 39) on April 30 (Cic.,
Att., 13, 20, 1). Octavius’ arrival at Carteia was therefore
some time in May.
[44]
σύνεσιν. There seems to be no valid reason for
altering the text, with Müller, to σύντασιν, ‘exertions’.
12.[45]
Lacuna of 2 pages.
The information embodied in
chapters 10-12 is unique with Nicolaus and hence does
not permit of any basis for comparison with other
writers. Suet., Aug., 8 makes the brief statement
that Octavian proceeded to Spain to join his great-uncle
after recovering from his illness; Vell. 2, 59, 3
briefly notes that Octavius was with Caesar, and Dio
43, 41, in alluding to the prodigy of the sprouting
palm, seems to infer that Octavius was present during
the entire expedition, including Munda. This portion
[Pg 79]
of Nicolaus’ biography shows every indication of having
been compiled with much dependence upon Augustus’
memoirs. It is possible that Nicolaus enlarged upon
the importance of Octavius’ actions in these chapters
over and above the material which he found in Augustus’
memoirs; however, the tone of the
Monumentum Ancyranum
shows that false modesty, at least, was not over-evident in
the character of the autobiographer in that case, and it is
conceivable therefore that Nicolaus has repeated Augustus’
words much as he found them.
13.[46]
ἀρ]γυροῦ
is Müller’s restoration. The reference, if this restoration is
correct, apparently is to a silver table-service. Dindorf attempts
no restoration, but prints simply
γύρου—‘of a circle’.
[47]
C. Claudius Marcellus, consul in 50 B.C., and at
that time a vigorous opponent of Julius Caesar (Cic.,
Brut., 64, 229; Plin., N. H., 2, 147; Suet., Caes., 29; App.
2, 26; Dio 40, 44; Pauly-Wissowa, Claudius, 216). He
and the members of his immediate family were warmly
congratulated by Cicero at the time of his attainment
of the office of consul (Cic., Fam., 15, 7; 15, 8; 15, 9;
15, 10; 15, 11), and Cicero later mentioned him as being
in accord, apparently at least, with his own views
(Cic., Att., 10, 12, 3).
[Pg 80]
When the civil war broke out he remained in Italy, coming
to terms with Caesar. After Caesar’s death he gave
his support to his young brother-in-law Octavian. The
family can be traced back 8 generations to M. Claudius
Marcellus, consul in 331 B.C.
[48] Drawn,
as has been noted (chap. 8, note 36) on September
13, 45 B.C. This passage proves that Nicolaus knew the
facts about the will and that the statement in chap. 8
is at least careless.
[49]
The statement as to the proportion of Octavius’ inheritance
agrees with Suet., Caes., 83, but is at variance
with Liv., Epit., 116, where one half of the total is
assigned to Octavius. Q. Pedius and L. Pinarius were
the other beneficiaries (Suet., Caes., 83, 2; App. 3, 22; 23;
94; Plin., N. H., 35, 21).
14.[50]
Pseudo-Marius, otherwise Herophilus or Amatius, was
a well-known character (Cic., Att., 12, 49, 1; 14, 6, 1;
Phil. 1, 2, 5; App. 3, 2). After Caesar’s death he erected
an altar or column on the place where Caesar’s body
had been burned and was responsible for much rioting
there. Antony finally put him to death, to the relief
of Cicero (Cic., Att., 14, 7, 1; 14, 8, 1; App. 3, 3); see
also Val. Max. 9, 15, 1; Liv., Epit., 116.
[51]
Caesar’s aunt, Julia, who died in 68 B.C., was the
wife of the great C. Marius (Plut., Caes., 1, 1).
15.[52][Pg 81]
Caesar, not the senate, declared Octavius a patrician.
L. Cassius, tribune in 44 B.C. (Cic., Phil., 3, 23),
introduced a special decree whereby the senate granted
Caesar the power of declaring persons of his choice
to be patricians (Tac., Ann., 11, 25; Suet., Caes., 41;
Dio 43, 47, 3). One of those chosen thus was Octavius
(Suet., Aug., 2; Dio 45, 2, 7); see E. Meyer,
Caesars Monarchie,
etc. Stuttgart 1919, p. 464.
[53] Excerptor’s note.
16.[54]
Apollonia. According to Nicolaus, Octavius left
Rome in December, and was therefore in Apollonia for
3 months before the murder of Caesar. This is at
variance with App. 3, 9, where Octavius is said to have
been in Apollonia for 6 months. In the latter case
he would have had to leave Rome immediately after his
return from Spain, which is not very probable in view
of the plausible details given by Nicolaus in the
preceding chapter.
The use of the word
ἐνταυθοῖ (Müller),
ἐνταῦθα (Dindorf)
with reference to Apollonia, gives the impression
that Nicolaus wrote the ‘Life of Augustus’ at
that place. Chapters 16 and 17 are written with considerable
detail concerning the behavior of the inhabitants
just prior to Octavius’ departure, and the account
is, among the historians, unique with Nicolaus. The
[Pg 82]
city was one of importance (Cic., Phil., 11, 11, 26), and
a favorite stopping point for travellers between Asia
and Rome via Brundisium. See O. E. Schmidt,
Jahrb. für Class. Philol.
Sup. 13, p. 685.
[55]
Octavius was accompanied to Apollonia by his friends
M. Agrippa and Q. Salvidienus Rufus (Suet., Aug., 94;
Vell. 2, 59, 5).
His instructor in rhetoric was the famous
Apollodorus of Pergamum (Suet., Aug., 89; Strabo 13, 4, 3;
Quint. 3, 1, 17). Caesar sent his nephew to Apollonia
to be trained in military tactics in anticipation of
an expedition against the Parthians (Suet., Aug., 8; App.
3, 9; Dio 45, 3; Plut., Brut., 22; Cic., 43; Ant. 16; Vell.
2, 59, 4; Liv., Epit., 117).
[56] Codex,
Αἰμίλιος. Müller has
suggested that M. Aemilius Scaurus is the individual here referred
to. He was, however, banished by Pompey in 52 B.C. (App.,
2, 24; Cic., Off., 1, 38; Q. Fr., 3, 8, 4), and little is
known of his subsequent actions. His son, of the same
name, was with Antony at Actium (Dio 51, 2; 56, 38).
The only other contemporaneous Aemilii were L. Aemilius
Paullus and his son L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus. The
former was in Rome in April, 44 B.C. (Cic., Att., 14, 7, 1;
14, 8, 1) thus precluding a command in Macedonia; the
latter accompanied Octavian against Sextus Pompeius in
Sicily, 42-36 B.C. (Suet., Aug., 16). E. Schwartz,
[Pg 83]
Hermes 33, p. 182, would emend
Μάρκος Αἰμίλιος to
Μάνιος Ἀκίλιος
on the basis of Cic., Fam., 7, 30, 3,
‘Acilius, qui in Graeciam
cum legionibus missus est.’
The date of the letter is January, 44 B.C. It is to
be noted that Cicero gives no praenomen in the letter;
elsewhere, the MS readings are divided between ‘Manius’
and ‘Marcus’ (Caes., B. C., 3, 15; 3, 16; 3, 39; Dio 42, 12).
Inasmuch as Nicolaus has written the praenomen ‘Marcus’
without abbreviation, an alteration to ‘Manius’ is
scarcely justifiable in view of the other MS tradition.
Marcus Acilius Caninus is the proper designation. See
Klebs, P. W. Real-Encycl.,
1, p. 251, Acilius 15. He was a
‘legatus’
of Caesar and was at Oricum in 48 B.C. (Caes., B. C., loc. cit.).
See also App. 3, 10.
17.[57]
Ἀλέξανδρος is the reading of the
codex, and is retained in the editions of Müller and Dindorf. No associate
of Octavius bearing this name is elsewhere mentioned, and since the
statement is here made that he returned to his home at Pergamum, Müller
suggests that Apollodorus is here intended to be represented.
See note 55, chap. 16 with appended
references. Piccolos has altered the reading to
Ἀπολλόδωρος (see his note,
Nicolas de Damas, Vie de César,
Paris 1850, p. 85). It is possible that Nicolaus, through the
use of Augustus’ memoirs, actually came
upon some such name [Pg 84]
as Alexander; if not, the reading ‘Alexander’ is attributable
to an error of the excerptor. Apollodorus is
described as being old at the time of the trip to
Apollonia by Suet., Aug., 89.
[58]
Four years earlier Caesar had been amicably received
by the inhabitants of Apollonia. Hence the appropriate
application of the term ‘friendly city’ even though
their action had been possibly influenced as much by
expediency as by conviction in 48 B.C. (Caes., B. C., 3,
10-13; App. 2, 54-55; Dio 41, 45, 1; 41, 47, 1).
[59] Strabo 7, C. 316,
πόλις εὐνομωτάτη as applied to
Apollonia, is reminiscent of Nicolaus’ expression,
εὐδαίμονα τὴν πόλιν ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα ποιήσας.
[60]
Nicolaus gives a more detailed account of Octavius’
landing in Italy than do the other historians (App. 3, 10;
Dio 45, 3; Vell. 2, 50). Beside Nicolaus only Appian
mentions the fact that Octavius stopped first at Lupiae
before proceeding to Brundisium.
[61]
See note 49, chapter 13, and the
citations there appended. Pedius and Pinarius are the only
co-inheritors with Octavian according to Suet., Caes., 83, 2.
Dio 44, 35 gives 30 and 75 denarii as alternative sums, to be paid
each citizen according to the terms of the will. App.
3, 23 states that the shares of Pedius and Pinarius
were requisitioned by Octavian to help make good the
[Pg 85]
amount to be distributed to the people. ‘Drachma’ and
‘denarius’ are to be understood as synonymous in the
accounts of Dio and Nicolaus, though not properly identical
in value.
[62]
Senate was convened in the temple of Tellus on
March 17, two days after the assassination, on the day
of the Liberalia (Cic., Att., 14, 10, 1; 14, 14, 2; App.
2, 126; Dio 44, 22). Plut., Brut., 19 erroneously places
the meeting of the senate on March 16.
[63] Caesar named Lepidus
‘Magister equitum iterum’ for
the year 44 (CIL 1, p. 440; 466; Dio 43, 49, 1; Suet., Caes.,
82; Plin., N. H., 7, 147).
[64]
CIL 12 p. 63, 64; Dio 43, 49; 45, 9; Cic., Phil., 2, 70;
App. 2, 107; Cic., Fam., 11, 2, 1; Plut., Ant., 11; Brut. 18;
Caes. 61; Vell. 2, 56; 58; Liv., Epit., 116, 117.
[65]
Probably a parenthesis by Nicolaus, and not a part
of the report that Octavius heard at the time. Brutus
and Cassius apparently did not leave Rome at once.
18.[66]
See App., 3, 11.
[67]
L. Philippus, as late as the middle of the ensuing
June, was still not at all sanguine of Octavius’ prospects,
but thought that nothing ought to be entrusted
to him, after having taken due regard for his age, his
name, his inheritance, and his training (Cic., Att., 15,
12, 2). With respect to the advice of Philippus against
[Pg 86]
the assumption by Octavius of the name Caesar, see
Cicero’s comment, on April 22 (Att. 14, 12, 2):
‘Octavius, quem quidem sui
Caesarem salutabant, Philippus non, itaque ne nos quidem.’
See also Suet., Aug. 8; App. 3, 11; Vell. 2, 60, 1.
[68]
‘The state’ at this stage of events was, of course,
by no means unreservedly ‘on his side’, as Nicolaus
says. In point of fact, as we learn from Cicero’s
letters, very few men at Rome concerned themselves at
this time about Octavian because of his youth, Nicolaus
is valuable here because he draws upon Octavian’s
memoirs and reveals how early Octavian matured his
plans to become Caesar’s successor in power as well as
property. The attitude of the consul Antony is well
known (see Suet., Aug., 10; Plut., Ant. 16). Octavian felt
that the influence of Cicero was worth cultivating, and hence
while staying with his step-father at the villa adjacent to that
of Cicero at Puteoli, during the latter part of April, made the
most of every opportunity to ingratiate himself with Cicero:
‘nobiscum hic perhonorifice et
peramice Octavius;’
‘Octavius ... mihi totus deditus.’
(Cic., Att., 14, 11, 2; 14, 12, 2). Before the middle of May, the
tribune L. Antonius presented Octavius to the people as Caesar’s
heir (Cic., Att., 14, 20, 5; 14, 21, 4; 15, 2, 3).
[69]
[Pg 87]
See App. 3, 10; 13; 14; Suet., Aug., 8; Vell. 2, 60, 1.
[70]
‘The name’ assumed by Octavius was not C. Julius
Caesar Octavianus as one would expect but C. Julius
C. f. Caesar (App. 3, 11; Dio 45, 3). Only his immediate
following, however, called him Caesar; Cicero at
this time called him Octavianus (Cic., Att. 14, 12, 2; 15, 12, 2;
Fam. 16, 24, 2). In the decrees of the senate reported in Cicero’s
Philippics during the next year he is referred to as C. Caesar
C.f. pontifex (Cic., Phil., 5, 17); this was after he had had his
adoption legally ratified by a
‘lex curiata’ (App. 3, 94). He
had been striving toward this end for some time, but
had continually been prevented in his attempts by
Antony, who had, of course, always acted under the
cover of a subordinate official (Dio 45, 5, 3; 46, 47, 4).
[71]
For the ‘money and means’ to which Octavian had
access see App. 3, 11; Dio 45, 3, who refer rather
briefly to the matter.
[72]
By ‘public property’ is meant the provincial
tribute which apparently went into the Aerarium Saturni.
Caesar treated military funds that accrued from
booty as ‘his own’, and Octavian apparently appropriated
a part of this.
[73]
Octavian proceeded into Campania, where many of
Caesar’s veterans had settled between 59 and 49 B.C.
[Pg 88]
(M. Cary, Jour. Phil. 70, p. 174 ff.), in order to discover
what their probable disposition toward himself
would be (App. 3, 12). This was as early as April, 44
B.C., for on the 18th, Cicero, at Cumae, met one who
had on the same day encountered Octavian at Naples
(Cic., Att., 14, 10, 3). As Nicolaus remarks below, the
opportunity for levying an army did not seem to be at
hand; nevertheless Octavian felt that preliminary investigations
along these lines would not be out of
place.
[74]
A slight lacuna in the text exists at this point;
the context is not seriously affected, however. The
rendering of Müller has been reproduced here; Piccolos
and Dindorf attempt no restoration.
[75]
See the latter part of note 70, above.
[76]
Octavian approached Rome before April 10. His advent excited the
interest of Cicero, who inquired of Atticus how great a following
he was gathering and what new moves he was contemplating (Cic.,
Att. 14, 5, 3). The reply of Atticus may have been of a
disparaging nature toward Octavian; at any rate, Cicero again wrote
on April 12, disdainfully dismissing Octavian from his thoughts
‘nam de Octavio, susque deque.’
Even this early, however, there were rumors in Rome that the legions in
Macedonia were returning at [Pg 89]
Octavian’s call: ‘Odiosa illa enim
fuerant, legiones venire!’ (Cic., Att., 14, 6, 1). See also
App. 3, 11; Dio 45, 3. On April 20, Cicero saw Octavian at Puteoli,
for Octavian had, after his canvass of Campania, proceeded
to his step-father’s villa at Puteoli, adjoining
the property of Cicero (Cic., Att., 14, 11, 2). Shortly
afterward, Octavian again went to Rome, stopping on
the way at Tarracina (App. 3, 12; Gardthausen, Augustus,
p. 53).
19.[77]
According to Plutarch, Brut. 10, the conspiracy was
well under way before March 1, 44 B.C.
[78]
Suetonius, Caes. 80, gives the number of conspirators
as 60; Eutropius, Brev. 6, 25, speaks of ‘60 or more.’ Of
the total number, some 20 can be definitely identified
by name; seven additional names have been erroneously
included among the number by various authors. The 20
fall into three divisions: Caesarians, 6; Pompeians, 10;
and those of uncertain partisanship, 4 (see Klotz, P. W.
Real-Encycl. 10, p. 255).
[79]
Nicolaus’ contradiction is self-evident. Just after
saying that D. Brutus was a particular friend of Caesar,
he includes him with Cassius and M. Brutus as a former
member of the Pompeian faction. D. Brutus had, in fact,
been associated with Caesar at least since 56 B.C.:
‘D. Brutum adulescentem classi Gallicisque
navibus ... [Caesar] praeficit’
[Pg 90]
(Caes., B. G., 3, 11, 5). Again, in 52
B.C. Caesar placed him in charge of some of his land
forces during his engagement with Vercingetorix:
‘Brutum adulescentem his copiis
praeficit;’ ‘mittit primum
Brutum adulescentem cum cohortibus’ (Caes., B. G.,
7, 9, 1; 7, 87, 1; B. C., 1; 36, 56, 58; 2, 3-7). When Caesar’s
will was read, it was found that D. Brutus had been
conditionally adopted by Caesar, subject to the death
of Octavian (App. 2, 143).
Cassius was in command of Pompey’s sea-force in
the Hellespont at the time of the civil war. He there
surrendered to Caesar, though his capitulation seems
not to have been justified by the circumstances (App.
2, 88; Dio 42, 6; Suet., Caes., 63). Caesar subsequently
made him ‘legatus’ (Cic., Fam., 6, 6, 10; 15, 15, 2).
M. Brutus joined Pompey in Macedonia before Pharsalia
(Plut., Brut. 4; Aurel. Vic., Vir. Illus. 82, 5).
After the battle he went over to Caesar. Appian, 2, 146,
makes the following statement: ‘all the murderers,
except Decimus alone, had been taken prisoners from
Pompey’s faction.’ The inaccuracy is similar to that
of Nicolaus.
[80]
The emendation of Müller,
καίπερ Καίσαρος
has been followed here; that of Piccolos is also good. The
codex reading is unintelligible and that of Dindorf
[Pg 91]
is scarcely less so. He alters
ἑκάστου to
ἕκαστον,
but leaves the remainder intact.
[81]
The leniency of Caesar was, of course, not entirely
attributable to altruistic motives, although from the
tone of Nicolaus one might infer that such was the case.
Caesar explains his policy in Cic., Att., 9, 7c.
[82]
The claim of Brutus, that he was descended from
Brutus the first consul and Ahala the regicide, was
generally accepted as a fact both by historians and
contemporary writers (Cic., Att., 13, 40, 1,
‘φιλοτέχνημα
illud tuum, quod vidi in Parthenone,
Ahalam et Brutum,’ see Tyrrell and Purser, The Correspondence
of Cicero, vol. 5, p. 177, note 1; vol. 6, p. cv; App. 2, 112; Dio 44, 12;
Plut., Brut. 1; Suet., Caes., 80).
[83]
Cassius and Brutus are, of course, the outstanding
examples of the type here referred to. For Caesar’s
treatment of his former opponents, see Plut., Caes. 57,
and citations in note 79, above.
[84]
The allusion is perhaps to the enthronement of a
statue of Caesar in the temple of Quirinus. Cicero
expressed much indignation in referring to the matter
(Cic., Att., 12, 45, 2; 13, 28, 3; Phil. 2, 43, 110; see also
Dio 43, 45; Suet., Caes., 76). Caesar was hailed further
as ‘Iuppiter Iulius’ and a temple was erected jointly
to him and to ‘Clementia’ (App. 2, 106; Dio 44, 6; Plut.,
[Pg 92]
Caes., 57; less specific, Suet., Caes., 76; Flor. 2, 13, 91).
[85]
The conspirators were pledged among themselves without
the usual formalities of either oaths or sacrifices,
according to Appian, 2, 114, and Plutarch, Brut. 12.
Sacrifices were the proper complement of oaths, but the
attention which would have been drawn by their performance
would have been at once fatal to the projected
undertaking.
[86]
The same incident is reported by the following
authors: Appian 2, 116; Dio 44, 18; Suetonius, Caes., 81;
Plutarch, Caes., 65; Velleius 2, 57; Florus 4, 2, 94. It
is a noteworthy fact that with the passage of time the
statements with regard to this occurrence become more
positive. Nicolaus employs indirect discourse, placing
the responsibility on the writer used by him as a
source; all the other authors mention the matter as an
actual happening.
20.[87]
On the occasion of the ‘ludi Victoriae
Caesaris,’ held July 20-30, 45 B.C. as a continuation of the
‘ludi’ of Sept. 46 (old calendar)
a figure of ‘Victoria’ was borne in procession in close proximity to
an image of Caesar. The populace refrained from applause, the
cause being, according to Cicero, that ‘Victoria’ was
in bad company, through the presence of Caesar’s image
(Cic., Att., 13, 44, 1).
[88][Pg 93]
This is perhaps the most gratuitously extravagant statement in the
entire fragment of Nicolaus. His purpose is, as E. Meyer suggests
(Caesars Monarchie, p. 517)
to place the blame for Caesar’s monarchical
aspirations upon his associates, some of whom flattered him excessively
while others deliberately urged him on with the intention of making him
ultimately an object of general hatred. The same tone is exhibited by Dio,
44, 3, and Plutarch, Caes., 57. Caesar was entirely well aware that he
was disliked, even by those whom he characterized as ‘easy going’:
‘Ego dubitem,’ Caesar
is reported to have said,
‘quin summo in odio sim, quom M.
Cicero sedeat nec suo commodo me convenire possit? Atqui si quisquam
est facilis, hic est, tamen non dubito quin me male oderit’
(Cic., Att., 14, 1, 2). Again,
‘Ego nunc tam sim stultus ut hunc
ipsum facilem hominem putem mihi esse amicum, cum tam diu sedens
meum commodum exspectet?’ (Cic., Att., 14, 2, 3).
[89] The
‘senatus consultum,’ enacted
after the victory at Munda, is also referred to by Dio 43, 45. It
appears that Caesar permitted the elections by magistrates to
proceed nominally as before, by popular vote, but
that he was the actual determining factor as to who
should be elected (Dio 43, 47). Compare Appian 4, 91,
Cassius’ alleged speech to his soldiers.
[90][Pg 94]
Concerning Caesarion, called ‘Cyrus’ by Nicolaus,
the son of Caesar and Cleopatra, see Cic., Att., 14, 20, 2;
Dio 47, 31; Suet., Caes., 52; Aug. 17; Plut., Caes., 49;
Ant. 54. All but Nicolaus acknowledge that he really
was Caesar’s son, and Nicolaus is unable to prove the
falsity of the allegation. It would have been extremely
difficult for Caesar to have secured the legitimizing
of Caesarion because of the universal antipathy
in Rome toward Cleopatra and eastern institutions in
general; further, much as Caesar may have desired a
natural heir, his purpose could not best be served by
Caesarion, who was an infant when Caesar’s will was
drawn, in comparison with his great-nephew, then 18
years of age.
[91]
Mention of Caesar’s intention of establishing an
empire in the East, with a capital at Alexandria or
at Ilium is also made by Suetonius, Caes., 79. Both
he and Nicolaus tend toward rejecting the idea as absurd;
but the fact is significant that in the summer
of 48 B.C. Caesar granted freedom to Ilium (Strabo 13,
1, 27). R. Meyer (Kleine Schr. p. 467; Caesars Monarchie
p. 521) thinks the plan entirely logical, and
accepts the report as plausible. It would have been
far simpler for Caesar to retain and augment his pseudo-divine
attributes in the East than could ever have
[Pg 95]
been the case in Rome; at the same time, the rights
and privileges historically peculiar to Rome could
have been served by an independent city government.
The same question arose in Augustus’ time (Horace,
Od., 3, 3).
[92]
Compare Cicero’s remarks to Caesar concerning the
statue on the rostra (Cic., pro Deiot. 12, 34). Dio 44,
4 gives a confused account of two statues having been
erected on the rostra, one intended to represent
Caesar as savior of the citizens, and the other as
‘rescuer of the city from siege;’ the appropriateness
of this latter attribute seems somewhat obscure.
[93]
The full names of the tribunes were L. Caesetius
Flavus and C. Epidius Marullus (Suet., Caes., 79; Dio
44, 9).
[94]
For the precedent of the temple of Concordia as a
meeting place for the senate, see Cicero, Cat., 3, 21;
Phil. 2, 8, 19; Sallust, Cat., 46; Plutarch, Cic., 19.
[95]
The account of Nicolaus, involving banishment of
the tribunes, is at variance with the versions of
Appian, 2, 108; 4, 93; Dio 44, 10; 46, 9; Suetonius, Caes.,
79; Plutarch, Caes., 61; Ant. 12; Livy, Epit., 116, all
of whom concur in saying that the tribunes were merely
cast out of the senate, and not sent into exile. It
is shown by Cicero, Phil., 13, 15, 31, that the tribunes
[Pg 96]
were simply removed from office:
‘quid ergo, ut Marullum,
ut Caesetium a republica removeremus, eum consecuti
sumus?’ The term
‘a republica’ means ‘from
public life’ and not ‘from the country;’ compare Velleius
2, 68.
[96]
In a letter to Atticus (Cic., Att., 15, 44, 1) dated about July 20,
45 B.C., Cicero alludes to the reported proposal of Cotta that Caesar
be made king in order that Parthia might be subdued according to the
terms of the Sibylline prophecy which stated that Parthia would be proof
against any but a king (Cic., Div., 2, 110). Compare also the passage,
‘munerum regiorum’
(regionum?)
(Cic., Fam., 6, 19, 2; Tyrrell and Purser 52, p. 162 and
note). On August 2, 45 B.C., Cicero actually speaks
of Caesar as ‘the king:’
‘nisi viderem scire regem me
animi nihil habere’ (Cic., Att., 25, 37, 2). The episode
of the diadem, involving the tribunes Caesetius and
Marullus, seems to have occurred in January, 44 B.C.
(Dio 44, 10: ‘later, when he was riding in from Albanum;’
CIL 1, p. 461:
‘C. Iulius C.f.C.n. Caesar VI dict. IIII
ovans a. DCCIX ex monte Albano VII Kal. Febr.’).
21.[97]
February 16 (CIL 12 p. 310,
Commentarii diurni, ‘XV
K. Mart. Luper’). See also Wissowa,
Religion und Kultus der Römer,2
p. 209.
[98]
Mention of Licinius as being the first to present
[Pg 97]
to Caesar the diadem enclosed within a wreath is unique
with Nicolaus. Appian 2, 109; Dio 44, 11; Livy, Epit.,
116; Velleius 2, 56, 4; Plutarch, Caes., 60; Ant. 12, and
Cicero, Phil., 2, 84-85; 3, 12, all concur in that they
make Antony solely responsible for having offered the
crown to Caesar. Duttlinger,
Untersuchungen über den
historischen Wert des
βίος Καίσαρος,
Heidelberg 1911, endeavoring to align the account of Nicolaus with
Cicero’s words:
‘Unde diadema? non enim abjectum
sustuleras, sed attuleras domo meditatum et cogitatum
scelus’ (Cic., Phil., 2, 85) makes the following assertion:
‘Diese Worte zeigen mit unumstösslicher
Sicherheit, dass Caesar schon einmal, bevor Antonius kam,
das Diadem von sich gewiesen hatte.’ A saner view is
expressed in the translation of the phrase by Halm-Laubmann,
Ciceros Ausgewählte Reden, vol. 6, p. 110:
‘du konntest es nicht von der Strasse
aufgehoben, auf der Strasse gefunden haben;’ thus no suggestion
of a former attempt by Licinius is to be read into Cicero’s
words. Cicero’s immediate purpose, of course, was to
bring discredit upon Antony for his actions on that
day of the Lupercalia, and hence any mention of Licinius
on his part would have been irrelevant to his case.
Cicero’s Philippics therefore afford no check upon the
accuracy of Nicolaus’ account, which rests here upon
[Pg 98]
its merits of priority in comparison with the versions
of the other historians.
[99]
It seems that the behavior of Lepidus at this juncture
was such as to attract attention; exactly what he
did can not be ascertained, but the indications are
that he kept himself strictly aloof. Cicero (Phil. 5, 38;
13, 17) wished to laud him, contrasting him with Antony.
At the place of the former citation he says of him:
‘Semper ille populum Romanum
liberum voluit maximumque signum illo die dedit voluntatis et
iudicii sui, cum Antonio diadema Caesari imponente se avertit,
gemituque et maestitia declaravit quantum haberet odium servitutis,’
etc. Cicero thus (though for a purpose) represents
him as averse to autocracy, while Nicolaus suggests
that he was in sympathy with Antony’s action.
[100]
As tribune (Dio 44, 32).
[101]
The report that Caesar was addressed directly by the
crowd as king,
‘Χαῖρε βασιλεῦ’
= ‘salve rex,’ is given
by Nicolaus alone. In this connection, however, see
chap. 20, note 96, and especially Cic., Att., 13, 37, 2,
where Cicero refers to Caesar as ‘rex’.
[102]
In comparison with the motive of Antony given here,
note the ridiculous reasons presented in the speech of
Fufius Calenus as published by Dio (46, 17-19). There
Antony is said to have offered the diadem for the very
[Pg 99]
purpose of shocking Caesar to reason and thus to cause
him to reject the proffered crown.
22.[103]
O. E. Schmidt,
Jahrb. für Class.
Philol.
Sup.
13, p. 682 suggests that this section should follow immediately upon
the words at the beginning of section 21:
‘τοιαῦτα μὲν δὴ τότε ἐλέγετο,’
thus making a more connected account of the accusation of the tribunes
and their subsequent restitution. Since, however, Nicolaus is about to
write of the annual elections, his order of relating
these events is not unnatural.
Nicolaus declares that Cinna secured the recall of
the tribunes through a decree passed while Caesar was yet alive;
Appian 2, 122 alludes to the tribunes as still being in exile on
March 16, 44 B.C., when Brutus and Cassius descended from the
Capitoline and urged that they be recalled. E. Meyer,
Caesars Monarchie,
p. 527, n. 2, is inclined to favor the version of Nicolaus.
[104]
The decree was that of the tribune L. Antonius,
mentioned by Cicero (Phil. 7, 16). Suetonius, Caes., 41
and Dio 43, 51 refer to the legal right of Caesar to
appoint one half of the total number of magistrates
for 3 years in advance; at the expiration of this
period his return from his expedition against the
Parthians was to have been expected. The decree of
Antonius was enacted between December 10, 45 B.C.,
[Pg 100]
the day on which the newly elected tribunes entered
into office, and March 15, 44 B.C. (see Sternkopf,
Ciceros ausgewählte Reden, vol. 9, p. 33).
Appian, 2, 128; 2, 138, says that Caesar appointed
magistrates for 5 years in advance; Suetonius, Caes., 76, speaks of
‘several’ years; Nicolaus is corroborated by Cicero (Att. 14, 6, 2),
‘Etiamne consules et tribunos
pl. in biennium quos ille voluit.’ See also Cic., Fam.,
10, 32, 2. Among the historians, Nicolaus alone names
Pansa and Hirtius, Brutus and Plancus, but Cicero
speaks of the former pair as
‘consules designati’ in
Philippic 3, 37 and 39, and of the latter pair as
‘consules designati’
in Philippic 3, 38.
[105]Antony.
[106]
For the behavior of Caesar when the senate approached
him to confer its honors upon him, see Appian 2,
107; Dio 44, 8; Suetonius, Caes., 78; Plutarch, Caes.,
60; Livy, Epit., 116; Eutropius 6, 25; Zonaras 10, 11.
Appian and Plutarch speak of Caesar as seated on the
rostra; Dio, Suetonius, and Livy place him before the
temple of Venus Genetrix. In the interest of accuracy
it is to be noted that both Appian and Plutarch incorrectly
refer to ‘consuls’ in the plural as being at the head of the procession:
‘τῶν ὑπάτων ἡγουμένων’ and
‘προσιόντων δὲ τῶν
ὑπάτων.’
[Pg 101]Excuses
for Caesar’s failure to rise are offered
by three of the historians: Dio lays the blame upon
an attack of diarrhoea, Plutarch upon an attack of
epilepsy, while Nicolaus, less extravagantly, simply
says that Caesar did not at first see the throng because
of his deep interest in his own undertaking.
More plausible are the suggested reasons of Suetonius:
that L. Cornelius Balbus dissuaded Caesar from rising
(compare Plut., Caes., 60, end), or that C. Trebatius
Testa urged him to rise and thus displeased him.
[107] Reading
συνόντες with the codex.
Piccolos reads
συγγνόντες, and Dindorf
συνέντες.
[108]
See also Appian 2, 106, 134, 138; Dio 44, 4; 5, 50.
After Caesar’s death Antony had inscribed upon a
statue of Caesar which he placed on the rostra,
‘parenti optime merito’
(Cic., Fam., 12, 3, 1). Suetonius, Caes., 85 tells of the
column erected in the forum, similarly inscribed,
‘parenti patriae.’
[109]
See Appian 2, 107, 109; Dio 44, 7. Caesar’s motive in dismissing his
guard was found to be difficult to explain by those who afterward
sought for causes. To many it could not but seem almost suicidal
negligence (Suet., Caes., 86); certainly his course did not meet
with the favor of his more prudent adherents:
‘laudandum experientia consilium est
Pansae atque Hirti, qui[Pg 102]
semper praedixerant Caesari ut principatum
armis quaesitum armis teneret’ (Vell. 2, 57, 1).
23.[110]
As Pontifex Maximus, Caesar lived in the Regia, in
the Via Sacra.
[111]
The bridge has been identified by M. E. Deutsch, University of California
Publications in Classical Philology, vol. 2, pp. 267 ff.
‘Petronia amnis est in Tiberim
perfluens, quam magistratus auspicato transeunt cum in
campo quid agere volunt’ (Festus 250). This stream, which flowed
westward from the Quirinal, was accordingly bridged by a small wooden
footway from which one might easily have been pushed into the shallow
watercourse below. Suetonius also refers to a
‘pons’ but seems erroneously
to have supposed it was the
‘pons’ of the voting place.
[112] The
‘Feriae Annae Perennae’ were
celebrated on March 15 (CIL 12 p. 311; Wissowa,
Religion und Kultus der Römer,2
pp. 147 and 241. See also Ovid, Fast., 3, 523; Macrobius, Sat., 1, 12, 6).
Perhaps the reference is to the Quinquatrus of March 19 (Wissowa, op. cit.,
p. 144).
[113]
Suetonius, Caes., 80, alone agrees with Nicolaus
in recounting the four tentative plans discussed by
the conspirators before it was decided that Caesar be
killed in the senate on March 15, but he is far less
explicit. According to Appian, 2, 115, Caesar was to
[Pg 103]
have set out for the East within four days of that
date; hence the conspirators must have felt that there
was no time to lose. The motions which Caesar wished
to introduce at this session of the senate referred to
final preparations and assignments before he departed
for Parthia. Dio 44, 15, says that Brutus and Cassius
felt that the motion might be put that Caesar be declared
king in order to assure victory over the Parthians
in accordance with a Sibylline prophecy (see
chap. 20, note
96),
and since they could not vote for the
measure, from conviction, nor against it, from policy,
they decided to kill him before suspicion should become
directed against themselves. In this connection, see
Appian 2, 113; Plutarch, Brut., 10, where attempts have
been made to reproduce the supposed dialog between
Brutus and Cassius on the subject.
24.[114]
According to the Greek mode of orientation to the
east, which Nicolaus has in mind, the back of one sacrificing
would be kept toward the west. The Romans followed
the Etruscan rule of facing south, in which case
the west, being on the right, would not be an unfavorable
quarter.
[115]
The codex reading is
ἐκέλευσε,
obviously incorrect. Müller emends to
ἐθέλησε; Piccolos and Dindorf to
ἐπένευσε. It has been thought
advisable to render[Pg 104]
here as if
ἐκέλευε were written, thus
adhering more closely to the actual text. For the use of the imperfect
to denote attempted action, compare Hdt. 1, 68,
‘ἐμισθοῦτο παρ’ οὐκ ἐκδιδόντος τὴν αὐλήν.’
(Godwin, G. M. T. 36).
[116]
Literally, ‘he seemed to do something rather bold
for one holding his hands inside.’ Didot renders as
though Caesar were referred to as keeping his hands
beneath his toga:
‘arrivé près de César, qui tenait
ses mains sous sa toge.’ It is scarcely possible to derive
such an interpretation from the Greek as it stands. The translation
‘for a suppliant’ was suggested by Plautus, Amph., 257,
‘velatis manibus orant,
ignoscamus peccatum suom.’ There ‘veiled hands’
(bearing fillets) are a mark of supplication;
‘εἴσω τὰς χεῖρας ἔχοντος’
as applied to Cimber may have a
similar meaning, particularly since he is described
as feigning to intercede with Caesar for his brother;
and Nicolaus may not have understood the Latin expression
(compare App. 2, 117; Suet., Caes., 82; Plut., Caes.
66; Brut. 17).
[117]
Appian 2, 117; Suet., Caes., 82; Livy, Epit., 116;
Florus 2, 13, 95; Zonaras 10, 11 D; Eutropius 6, 25;
Valerius Maximus 4, 5, 6; Plutarch, Caes., 66, mention
23 wounds; Dio 44, 19, speaks of ‘many’ wounds; Nicolaus
[Pg 105]
alone gives the number as 35. O. E. Schmidt,
Jahrb. für class. Philol.,
sup. 13, p. 674, suggests that there may
have been two traditions at the time of Nicolaus, one
involving 23 wounds, the other 35. This belief is
scarcely justifiable, since there is but one example
of the latter tradition, and Suetonius, whose account
usually coincides with that of Nicolaus, is here at
variance. Piccolos,
Nicolas de Damas, Vie de César,
p. 89 shows how the capitals
Κ and
Γ (23)
may have become corrupted to
Ε and
Λ (35). The error is possibly
due to the excerptor.
25.[118]
A slight lacuna exists here.
[119]
Brutus, as spokesman for the assassins, is here
described as attempting to deliver a formal address
to the multitude immediately after the murder and before
the conspirators fled to the Capitoline. A similar
implication is found in Dio 44, 20-21, though
Brutus is not there mentioned by name. Appian 2, 119,
suggests rather that the slayers simply ran, shouting
random remarks in defense of their deed.
[120]
So also Appian 2, 114; Plutarch, Brut., 18, 2; Ant. 13, 2;
Velleius 2, 58. Dio, 44, 19, says that the decision not to kill
Antony was duly reached, but here Brutus is not named as being
the influential factor. Cicero (Att., 15, 12, 2) seems to refer
with some petulance to[Pg 106]
the reputation for lenience which Brutus created for himself:
‘L. quidem Antonius liberaliter
litteris sine cura me esse iubet. Habeo unum beneficium, alterum
fortasse, si in Tusculanum venerit. O negotia non
ferenda! quae feruntur tamen.
τὰν δ’ αἰτίαν τῶν Βρούτων τις ἔχει.’
Again (Att. 15, 20, 2)
‘foedum ducens et quasi denuntiatum
nobis ab Antonio ex hac nassa exire constitui ... haec omnis culpa
Bruti.’ A year later Cicero again alludes to Brutus’ policy
concerning Antony at the time of the murder of Caesar:
‘tu lenius’ (Cic.,
ad Brut., 2, 5, 1).
26.[121]
It is not elsewhere mentioned that Caesar intended
to make an expedition against the Indians.
[122]
C. Calvisius Sabinus, consul in 39 B.C., was in the
year 48 with Caesar (Caes., B. C., 3, 34). In 38 he held
a command in Octavian’s fleet, at that time engaged
with Sextus Pompeius (App. 5, 80-81), and in the year
36 he was superseded by Agrippa because of his failure
to prevent the desertion of one of his subordinates
(App. 5, 96). Marcius Censorinus, probably praetor in
43 B.C., is spoken of as a Caesarian and an Antonian
in Att. 14, 10, 2; Phil. 11, 36; 13, 2, but their attempt
to defend Caesar is mentioned only by Nicolaus.
[123]
So also Appian 2, 118; Suetonius, Caes., 82.
26 b.[124]
Compare Appian 2, 115; Dio 44, 16. The part played
[Pg 107]
by Decimus Brutus in engaging the services of the
gladiators is referred to by Appian 2, 122; Plutarch,
Brut. 12.
[125]
As has been seen (chap. 22, note 109) there were, in
fact, no guards. See also Appian 2, 118: ‘there was no
detachment of soldiers about Caesar, for he did not
care for guards.’
[126]
A slight lacuna exists here.
[127]
The second speech of Brutus was delivered in the afternoon of March
15. So also Plutarch, Brut., 18, 3-4. Plutarch, Caes., 67, 3 seems
to imply that this same address took place on the following day:
‘μεθ’ ἡμέραν δὲ τῶν περὶ
Βροῦτον
κατελθόντων καὶ ποιησαμένων λόγους.’
Appian 2, 122 states that Brutus descended from the
Capitoline, the wound in his hand still fresh, and,
together with Cassius, spoke in the forum. The rather
unexpected praise of Brutus may be an indication that
Nicolaus is using Pollio’s histories.
27.[128]
This is the
‘contio Capitolina prima’ which was
held on March 15, late in the day, and at which Cicero was present.
He endeavored to secure a convocation of the senate, to be summoned
by Brutus and Cassius on their authority as praetors, so that they
might be legally confirmed as tyrannicides, thus forestalling
any attempt on the part of the Caesarians and the [Pg 108]
Antonians to have them proclaimed murderers (Cic., Att. 14, 10, 1,
‘meministine me clamare illo ipso primo Capitolino
die debere senatum in Capitolium a praetoribus vocari,’ etc.
Also Cic., Phil., 2, 89). This meeting on the Capitoline should not be
confused with a second
‘contio Capitolina’ referred to by
Cicero (Att., 15, 1 b, 2), and which seems to have been subsequent to the
meeting of the senate in the temple of Tellus on March
17, when Cicero was able to secure only a rather unsatisfactory
compromise for the members of the republican
faction. See the note of Tyrrell and Purser,
The Correspondence of Cicero, vol. 5, p. 307.
[129]
The temple of Jupiter Capitolinus is,
of course, to be understood.
[130]
The despatch of messengers from the conspirators to Antony and Lepidus
is also told of by Appian 2, 123.
[131]
Appian 2, 126 and Dio 44, 22 both make special note
of the fact that Lepidus had an armed force in the
city before daybreak on March 17. Appian, however,
in the same passage asserts that Antony did not bring
in any troops, so as not to disturb the city.
[132] Reading
ἐκ νεωτερισμοῦ
with E. Schwartz, Hermes 33, p. 184, instead of
δὲ καὶ.
[133] Dio 44, 34,
says that Lepidus was only making a pretense of advocating vengeance:
‘ὁ μὲν γὰρ Λέπιδος πρόσχημα τὴν τοῦ
Καίσαρος τιμωρίαν ποιούμενος’[Pg 109], etc.,
while Appian 2, 151-152, states that Lepidus was employed
as a tool both by those who desired revenge
and those who favored amnesty with the assassins.
[134]
ἄλλος, codex. E.
Schwartz, Hermes 33, p. 184 suggests the emendation
Βάλβος, which is very plausible.
[135]
Between the sections 27 and 28 the excerptor has
perhaps omitted a portion of his original material.
Much of what is told by Nicolaus in section 27 is
given in far greater detail than is the case with the
other historians. The events related in this chapter,
especially the interchange of messengers between Antony
and Lepidus and Brutus and Cassius, have been thought
to have had a very close connection with the circumstances
which occasioned the writing of Cic., Fam., 11, 1, a letter
from D. Brutus to M. Brutus and Cassius. O. E. Schmidt,
Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paed.,
129, wishes therefore to date the letter in the morning of
March 17; P. Gröbe,
Drumann-Gröbe Geschichte Roms,
12, p. 411 ff., would place the letter still earlier, on
March 16. E. T. Merrill, Class. Philol. 10, p. 241 ff.,
has now shown that D. Brutus’ allusions to the disposition
of Antony and Hirtius toward him may well have
been relevant to a later period, and hence he would
set the date of the letter as late as April 10, thus
approximating Schmidt’s original view, which gave
[Pg 110]
April 5 as the probable time of writing
(Die Correspondenz Ciceros in den
Jahren 44 und 43, Marburg 1883).
It follows therefore that chapter 27 of Nicolaus should
not be employed as a criterion on the date of Cic.,
Fam., 11, 1.
28.[136]
Lacuna, which is apparently quite long, for the affairs
mentioned in the following belong to June and
July, whereas the story of Octavian told before chapter
19 was only of his return to Rome in April.
[137]
The aedile Critonius is probably referred to (compare
App. 3, 28). The proper name may have been lost
in the lacuna immediately above.
[138]
Compare Appian 3, 28; Dio 45, 6; Suetonius, Caes., 88;
Plutarch, Ant., 16; Pliny, N. H., 2, 23. Since both Appian
and Nicolaus refer to two controversies between Octavian
and Antony, of which the second was at the time of the
festival of Venus Genetrix in July, the question has
arisen as to what the earlier occasion could have been. The
‘ludi Cereales’ are precluded,
for Octavian was in Campania during the period in which they
were held, April 12-19 (Cic., Att., 14, 12, 2). The
‘ludi Florales’
were given April 28-May 3, and since Cicero on May
22 referred to the episode of the throne (Att. 15, 3, 2)
these must have been the games at which Octavian experienced
his difficulty for the first time, unless it[Pg 111]
can be shown that the
‘ludi Cereales’ were postponed
for a month, in which event they would have also been
completed just prior to Cicero’s letter of May 22.
[139]
See Appian 3, 21; 3, 23; Dio 45, 7. According to Appian’s
account, Octavian liquidated not only the residuary
estate which he received from Caesar, but also some of
his own property in order to pay the specific legacies
to the people. This would naturally make them feel
indebted to him as well as to his late uncle, and was
a particularly shrewd bit of strategy on his part in
winning popular opinion away from Antony.
[140]
Antony and Dolabella.
[141]
Antony is accused of having made away with 700,000,000
sesterces (approximately $30,000,000) (Cic., Phil., 1, 17;
2, 35; 2, 93; 4, 14; 5, 11; Att. 14, 14, 5; Fam. 12, 2, 2; Vell.
2, 60, 4). Antony’s obvious defense was that the Caesarian
treasury, the temple of Ops, had been left exhausted by
Caesar (App. 3, 20).
[142]
During April and May Antony was corresponding with Brutus and
Cassius, both verbally and by letter. The general impression
given by Cicero is that a friendly compromise was not improbable:
‘Antoni colloquium cum heroibus
nostris pro re nata non incommodum.’ (Cic.,
Att., 14, 6, 1, written April 12)
‘Epistula brevis quae
postea a te scripta est sane mihi fuit iucunda, de
Bruti ad Antonium ... litteris[Pg 112]’
(Cic., Att., 14, 14, postscript). The appeal of Brutus and Cassius
to Antony (Cic., Fam., 11, 2), as to what their chance for safety
would be in Rome, was sent from Lanuvium toward the end of May.
[143] Lacuna.
[144]
These men seem to belong to the ‘middle group’ just
mentioned before the Lacuna. Nicolaus assumes that
they are not genuine friends of Octavian but egg him on
against Antony for purposes of their own. That they
did so as Cicero certainly did for the sake of preserving
the constitution he neglects to say. ‘Vibius’ is
of course C. Vibius Pansa, one of the consuls designated
for 43, who though formerly a friend of Antony
was induced by Cicero to support the senate in view of
his coming consulship. He was friendly to Octavian
but would hardly have supported Octavian’s ambitions
to the full. Lucius may well be L. Julius Caesar, consul
of 64 B.C., and Antony’s uncle; see Pauly-Wiss.
Julius 145. He opposed his nephew Antony in 44 and
supported the senate, though he also tried to restrain
the senate from declaring open war on Antony in 43.
We are not told what his attitude toward Octavian was,
but his opposition to Antony, his frequent support of
Cicero, his desire for peace, and his friendship for
[Pg 113]
conservatives like L. Piso, P. Servilius Vatia, Servius
Sulpicius, and Philippus make it probable that he
favored Octavian’s opposition of Antony without supporting
Octavian’s extreme ambitions. E. Schwartz (Hermes
33, p. 184) suggests that L. Piso is here referred to.
This is possible, but in view of the fact that L.
Julius Caesar was proscribed by the triumvirs in 43,
it is more likely that he is the one attacked by Nicolaus.
The Publius referred to is probably P. Servilius
Vatia. He was a man of little force of character, who
half-heartedly supported the senate against Antony in
44 and 43. The fact that Lucius Caesar, against Cicero’s
advice, nominated him in 43 as proconsul to oppose
Dolabella, proves that he belongs to the moderate
group which did not wish to offend Caesar’s soldiers
or Octavian by giving open support to Brutus and Cassius
(Cic., Phil., 11, 19). Brutus (Cic., ad Brut., 1, 16)
as early as May, 43, took Cicero to task for commending
his own safety to Octavian; in ad Brut. 1, 17, 5, he alludes
to the terms to which Octavian had come with Cicero,
in that the youth addressed the elder man as
‘pater’.
[145]
Gallia Narbonensis (compare Dio 43, 51). Lepidus
became triumvir with Antony and Octavian in 43.
[146]
See Cic., Phil., 5, 6; Fam. 10, 1, ff. Plancus had
[Pg 114]
been nominated consul for the year 42 by Caesar. He
held Gallia Comata under the provisions of the
‘lex Julia,’
concerning the assignment of provinces. Antony
endeavored to displace him through the
‘lex tribunicia de provinciis,’
enacted in the early part of June, 44, but his position was confirmed by a
‘senatus consultum’
of December 20, which provided that the provincial
governors should retain their tenures until the senate
itself should appoint successors (Cic., Phil., 3, 38).
[147]
Compare Dio 45, 10; App. 4, 84. Pollio was already
in his province when Caesar was murdered, according to
his reference to the Ides of March in Cic., Fam., 10, 31, 4.
[148] See App. 3, 2; Cic., Att., 14, 13, 2. D. Brutus had
gone to his province in April 44 B.C.
[149]
Brutus’ official name was Q. Servilius Caepio after
his adoption by his uncle, though he continued to be
called M. Junius Brutus by his friends. ‘Gaius’ is
probably an error of the excerptor.
[150]
For the year 44, the lawful praetor for Macedonia
was Q. Hortensius (Cic., Phil., 10, 11; 10, 13; 10, 26).
[151]
Syria was under L. Staius Murcus, followed by Q.
Marcius Crispus (App. 3, 77) until the advent of Cassius
(Dio 47, 27-28; Cic., Fam., 12, 11, 1; 12, 12, 3). There is
confusion among the historians as to what provinces
were actually assigned to Brutus and Cassius for the
[Pg 115]
year 43. Appian 3, 2; 3, 7-8; 3, 12; 3, 16; 3, 24; 3, 36;
4, 37, states that Brutus and Cassius were appointed
for Macedonia and Syria. Florus 2, 17, 4 says also that
Caesar had given them Macedonia and Syria. Plutarch,
Caes., 57; Ant. 14; Cic. 42; Brut. 19, as consistently
state that Brutus and Cassius received no provinces
until after Caesar’s death; the senate ultimately
assigned Crete and ‘Libya’ (Plut., Brut., 19). Dio 47,
21 explicitly states that Macedonia and Syria never
were given to Brutus and Cassius, but that Crete and
Bithynia were. Appian 3, 8 mentions Cyrenaica and
Crete, and as an alternative report, Cyrenaica and
Crete for Cassius and Bithynia for Brutus. The sequel
is, of course, well known. Brutus and Cassius seized
Macedonia and Syria forcibly. W. Sternkopf, Hermes
47, pp. 340-347, has shown that the versions of Appian
and Florus, that Caesar had given Macedonia and Syria
to Brutus and Cassius for the year 43, are incorrect.
Perhaps his most cogent point is that Cicero nowhere
condemns Antony and Dolabella for having diverted from
Brutus and Cassius provinces originally ordained for
them. In fact Cicero (Phil. 11, 27-30) endorses Brutus
and Cassius for having appropriated provinces which
belonged, according to written law
(legibus scriptis)
to others
(Macedoniam alienam;
Syriam, alienam provinciam).
[Pg 116]
It should be noticed that the phrase of Nicolaus regarding Brutus,
‘Μακεδονίᾳ
δὲ Γ. Βροῦτος ἔφεδρος ἦν’
is not entirely clear. It is just possible that
Appian’s grave error is due to a misunderstanding of
Nicolaus or of Nicolaus’ source if that also contained
some ambiguous expression like
ἔφεδρος.
[152]
Caesar had not bequeathed his position in the state
to Octavian, though he had doubtless intended, should
he live long enough, to be able eventually to name his
successor. This passage is interesting in revealing
the point of view of Octavian, whose memoirs Nicolaus
used.
29.[153]
According to App. 3, 28, Octavian himself, accompanied
by a following of civilians, canvassed the plebeians,
endeavoring to excite their anger against Antony.
[154]
In Appian’s account (3, 29-30, 39) Antony is said to
have been in need of Octavian’s assistance in order to
procure the exchange of provinces.
[155]
A lacuna here intervenes, so that the account of the
actual reconciliation is wanting. Appian, 3, 29-30, 39,
agrees in the main with Nicolaus; Antony is influenced
by his military tribunes, former soldiers of Caesar.
In Dio 45, 8 Octavian and Antony are said to have made
mutual concessions. According to Plutarch, Ant., 16,
Antony became apprehensive on finding that Octavian
[Pg 117]
had joined forces with his more powerful foes, among
whom was Cicero.
30.[156]
For a commentary on the swing of public opinion
from Antony to Octavian, see App. 3; 12, 21, 23, 24, 29;
Dio 45, 8; Plut., Ant., 16. R. Duttlinger, op. cit.,
pp. 77-78, directs attention to the fact that Appian
presents Antony in a fairer light in this connection
than do Nicolaus, Dio, or Plutarch, thus indicating a
probable diversity of sources.
[157]
On the authority of the
‘lex de permutatione provinciarum’
of June 1-2, 44 B.C. W. Sternkopf, Hermes 47, p. 357 ff. and
Ciceros ausgewählte Reden, vol. 8,
p. 9 and note, declares that this act is identical with the
‘lex tribunicia de provinciis,’
both having been ratified at the same meeting. The former term is employed
by Livy, Epit., 117; the latter by Cicero, Phil.,
5, 7. The combined result was that Antony should have
part or all of Gaul in place of Macedonia, and that
both consuls should enjoy an imperium extended for
five years. In the historians the references to the
exchange of provinces are: Dio 45; 9, 20, 25; 46; 23, 24;
Appian 3; 27, 29, 30, 31, 37, 38, 52, 55, 63.
[158]
Antony left Rome October 9:
‘Antonius autem ... a.d. VII Id. Oct.
Brundisium erat profectus’ (Cic., Fam., 12,
23, 2). Also App. 3, 40.
[159][Pg 118]
This is the only occurrence of the spelling ‘Atia’
in the excerpt. Elsewhere the name is given ‘Antia’.
[160]
Appian 3, 39, and Plutarch, Ant., 16, both seem to
discredit the report that Octavian made an attempt
against Antony’s life, though they do not endeavor to
deny it so vigorously as does Nicolaus. Suetonius,
Aug. 10; Velleius 2, 60, and Seneca, de Clem., 1, 9, 1, all
indicate that the attempt was really made. Cicero,
Fam., 12, 23, 2, both believes and approves of it,
though it is possible that he was carried away by his
own desire rather than that he weighed conclusive
contemporaneous evidence. He remarks, however, that
the populace did not believe it, and that Antony never
gave a report on the prisoners he was supposed to have
seized. In Phil. 3, 19, he goes so far as to take upon
himself the credit for having urged Octavian to the
deed. The circumstantial refutation of Nicolaus comes
doubtless from Augustus’ memoirs.
31.[161]
Lacuna. Octavian’s exploit in securing enlistments
in Campania is referred to by the following: App. 3;
40, 58; Dio 45; 12, 38; Suet., Aug., 10; Vell. 2, 61; Plut.,
Ant., 16; Cic. 44; Tac., Ann., 1, 10; Cic., Phil., 3, 3; 4, 3;
5, 23, 44. Nicolaus is unique in stating that Octavian
first approached the Seventh and Eighth Legions. Both
of these were composed of veterans (Cic., Phil., 14, 27;
[Pg 119]
CIL 10, 4786). Beside the fact that Octavian offered
an inducement toward enlisting to the extent of 500
denarii ($80) to each man, the veterans were glad to
aid him oppose Antony because of a new colony established
by the latter near Casilinum (Cic., Phil., 2,
100-102) which served to make Antony unpopular with
the Caesarian veterans who had a prior claim to the
ground. (M. Cary, Journal of Philology, 70, pp. 174-190,
treats of the land legislation of Caesar in regard to
Campania. He is of the opinion that Casilinum and
Calatia, being settled by veterans of the Civil War,
must have been founded under a later statute than the
‘lex Campana’ of 59 B.C.)
Octavian’s levy was not authorized; it was therefore a revolutionary
measure. Nicolaus takes pains to show that Octavian reached
his decision only after Antony proved that he was
destined upon war. In this Nicolaus apparently makes
a good case: Antony left for Brundisium on October 9,
and Octavian is represented as forming his decision
and departing for Campania a few days later. Confirmation
comes from Cicero, who on November 2 wrote significantly
to Atticus (16, 8), ‘On the afternoon of the
first I had a letter from Octavian. He is making a
great undertaking. The veterans at Casilinum and
Calatia he has won over to his side. Nor is this
[Pg 120]
strange; he gives 500 denarii apiece. Evidently he
means to wage war with Antony. And so I see that in a
few days we shall be in arms. But whom are we to follow?
Consider his name and his age.’
[162]
Q. Juventius and M. Modialius are unknown. L.
Maecenas is incorrectly written for C. Maecenas, of
whom this seems to be the earliest mention. M. Agrippa
had been a companion of Octavian at Apollonia. ‘Lucius’
may be L. Cocceius Nerva, great-grandfather of the
emperor Nerva. He is mentioned as a trusted friend of
Octavian in 41, and thence throughout his life.
[163] The several references to his mother could only have
come from Augustus’ own memoirs.
[164] Appian 3, 24, incorrectly states that Brutus and
Cassius left Italy shortly after the ‘ludi Apollinares’
in July. Dio 47, 20, is more accurate in saying that
they delayed in Campania for a time. Cic., Fam. 11, 3,
was sent from Naples August 4 by Brutus and Cassius to
Antony; and Cicero addressed Cassius at Puteoli in the
early part of October (Cic., Fam., 12, 2; 12, 3). Brutus
and Cassius would scarcely have been concerned over
the news of the young Octavian’s preparations; their
departure, though it coincided in time with Octavian’s
levy was not caused by this.
[165] Calatia was apparently the home of the Seventh Legion,
[Pg 121]
since he had decided to approach this first. His effort
was successful, for the Seventh Legion took part in the
battle of Forum Gallorum (Cic., Phil., 14, 10, 27).
[166] The next colony was apparently Casilinum, where was
the Eighth Legion.
[167] According to Cicero (Fam., 12, 23, 2) Octavian went in
person to Brundisium to win over the four legions just
arrived from Macedonia.
[168] Appian mentions this means of propaganda in 3; 31, 39,
44. His first reference to it in 3, 31 antedates his
account of Octavian’s alleged attempt against Antony’s
life; this anticipation is of course incorrect.