[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 wassupersededby 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 playedby 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, note109) 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 περὶΒροῦτονκατελθόντων 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 theAntonians 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 ofJupiterCapitolinus 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]Readingἐκ νεωτερισμοῦwith E. Schwartz, Hermes 33, p. 184, instead ofδὲ 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 emendationΒάλβος, which is very plausible.
[135]Between the sections 27 and 28 the excerptor has perhaps omitted a portion of his original material. Much of what is told by Nicolaus in section 27 is given in far greater detail than is the case with the other historians. The events related in this chapter, especially the interchange of messengers between Antony and Lepidus and Brutus and Cassius, have been thought to have had a very close connection with the circumstances which occasioned the writing of Cic., Fam., 11, 1, a letter from D. Brutus to M. Brutus and Cassius. O. E. Schmidt,Neue Jahrb. für Philol. und Paed., 129, wishes therefore to date the letter in the morning of March 17; P. Gröbe,Drumann-Gröbe Geschichte Roms, 12, p. 411 ff., would place the letter still earlier, on March 16. E. T. Merrill, Class. Philol. 10, p. 241 ff., has now shown that D. Brutus’ allusions to the disposition of Antony and Hirtius toward him may well have been relevant to a later period, and hence he would set the date of the letter as late as April 10, thus approximating Schmidt’s original view, which gaveApril 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 itcan 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.Julius145. 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 forconservatives 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 hadbeen 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 theyear 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 ἔφεδροςἦν’ 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 likeἔφεδρος.
[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 Octavianhad 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. andCiceros 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 thisstrange; 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.