COMMENTARY
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 12p. 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 thegeniusof the emperor (Dio 51, 19,7; 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 beenan 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,ἐννέαcould be altered toἕνδεκα(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 butwith his son Perseus (CIL 1, p. 359). Either Nicolaus was misinformed, orΦίλιππονhas been inserted in the text by attraction in place ofΠερσέα. 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.,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. TheFeriae Latinaewere 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 theFeriae(Dio 43, 48) for Caesar was then sole consul; in 48 and 46 the other consul was probably in charge. For 48 this wasServiliusIsauricus and for 46, Lepidus.
[25]Aspraefectus urbi. Nicolaus is correct and the other authors are wrong. App., 3, 9; Dio 43, 51; Plin., N. H., 7, 147 say that Octavius becamemagister equitumin this year. Gardthausen,Aug. und seine Zeit, p. 48,shows that there is a possibility for confusion between the termspraefectus urbiandmagister equitumin 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 ofpraefectus urbi, at least during the period of theFeriaewhen 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 thepraefectus 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 12p. 324).
[29]Referring to theBellum Alexandrinum. In point of fact, Caesar left Egypt nominally free to be ruled by Cleopatra.
[30]The Black Sea. The referenceisto the battle at Zela with Pharnaces, son of Mithradates, whom he overcame on August 2/May 21, 47 B.C. (CIL 12p. 244). This was the occasion of the celebrated ‘veni vidi vici.’
[31]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 Africandisturbance, 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]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 titleImperatoras 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’sdedication 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 andCatalepton14, see Class. Quart. 14, p. 156. Theludi Romaniandludi Graeciwere given separately (Suet., Aug. 45; Tac., Annal. 14, 15). See also CIL 6, 32323; Dessau, Ins. Lat., 5050, an account of theLudi Saecularesof 17 B.C. In addition to the Theatre of Pompey, a temporary wooden stage was erected for theludi Latiniin 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 toknow, 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]Lacunaof 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 portionof 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 theMonumentum Ancyranumshows 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]γυροῦis Müller’s restoration. The reference, if this restoration is correct, apparently is to a silver table-service. Dindorf attempts no restoration, but prints simplyγύρου—‘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).
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,note36) 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]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 wordἐνταυθοῖ(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. Thecity 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 emendΜάρκος ΑἰμίλιοςtoΜάνιος Ἀκίλιοςon 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]Ἀλέξανδροςis 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 note55, chap. 16 with appended references. Piccolos has altered the reading toἈπολλόδωρος(see his note,Nicolas de Damas, Vie de César, Paris 1850, p. 85). It is possible that Nicolaus, through the useofAugustus’ memoirs, actually came upon some such nameas 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 εὐνομωτάτηas 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 note49, 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 theamount 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 12p. 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 againstthe 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 note70, 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 atOctavian’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 Καίσαροςhas been followed here; that of Piccolos is also good. The codex reading is unintelligible and that of Dindorfis scarcely less so. He altersἑκάστουtoἕκαστον, 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, ‘φιλοτέχνημαillud 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 note79, 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’smonarchicalaspirations 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, ‘quinsummo in odio sim, quom M. Cicero sedeat nec suo commodo me convenire possit? Atqui si quisquam est facilis, hic est, tamen non dubito quinme male oderit’ (Cic., Att., 14, 1, 2). Again, ‘Ego nunctam sim stultusut 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 havebeen 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 tribuneswere 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 scireregemme 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 12p. 310,Commentarii diurni, ‘XV K. Mart. Luper’). See also Wissowa,Religion und Kultus der Römer,2p. 209.
[98]Mention of Licinius as being the first to presentto 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 desβίος 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 uponits 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 imponentese 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, note96, 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 verypurpose of shocking Caesar to reason and thus to cause him to reject the proffered crown.
22.[103]O. E. Schmidt,Jahrb. fürClass.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. inbienniumquos 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;Eutropius6, 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 τῶνὑπάτων.’
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]Readingσυνόντεςwith the codex. Piccolos readsσυγγνόντες, and Dindorfσυνέντες.
[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, quisemper 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 12p. 311; Wissowa,Religion und Kultus der Römer,2pp. 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 tohave 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,note96), 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 isἐκέλευσε, obviously incorrect. Müller emends toἐθέλησε; Piccolos and Dindorf toἐπένευσε. It has been thought advisable to renderhere as ifἐκέλευεwere 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 ἐκδιδόντοςτὴν 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; Nicolausalone 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 capitalsΚandΓ(23) may have become corrupted toΕandΛ(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 tothe 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.