Chapter III: Part 3

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 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, 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 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 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 1^2 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 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] 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. (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 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’ (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 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., 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] 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] 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 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 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 5^2, 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 1^2 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 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 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 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., 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.’

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
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 1^2 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 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 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 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 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 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
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’, 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, 1^2, 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 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 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’ (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 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 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 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). 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 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] 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; 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 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,
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.

VITA

Clayton Morris Hall was born at Ruxton, Maryland, September 24, 1896. From 1908 to 1914 he was prepared for college at the Boys’ Latin School, Baltimore. In the autumn of 1914 he entered the College of Arts and Sciences of the Johns Hopkins University, whence he received the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1918. During 1918-1919 he was in the United States Army. In the autumn of 1919 he began graduate work in Latin, Classical Archaeology, and Greek in the Johns Hopkins University, and held, from 1920 to 1922, a Johns Hopkins Scholarship.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES