[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. The Feriae Latinae were inaugurated in 49 (CIL 1,
p. 440, Fasti Cos. Capitolini). The following year, 48, Caesar
was absent in the East, as was also the case in 46 and 45. In 45
‘a certain prefect’ conducted the Feriae (Dio 43, 48) for Caesar
was then sole consul; in 48 and 46 the other consul was probably
in charge. For 48 this was Servilius Isauricus and for 46,
Lepidus.
[25] As praefectus urbi. Nicolaus is correct and the other
authors are wrong. App., 3, 9; Dio 43, 51; Plin., N. H., 7,
147 say that Octavius became magister equitum in this year.
Gardthausen, Aug. und seine Zeit, p. 48, shows that there is a
possibility for confusion between the terms praefectus urbi and
magister equitum in the writings of the later Greek historians.
The latter office would be considerably too responsible for a
youth of 16 years, while it is conceivable that the duties of
praefectus urbi, at least during the period of the Feriae when
the city was almost entirely deserted, would not be excessively
onerous. Strabo 5, C. 229 and Dio 49, 42 show that the practice
of appointing youths for this office was continued by Augustus.
[26] The proper duty of the praefectus urbi (CIL 2, 3387).
6. [27] He started for Spain in April, 49 B.C. (Cic., Att. 10,
3a) and in due time brought about the surrender of Afranius
(Caes., B. C., 1, 37-87; App. 2, 42; Dio 41, 22; Suet., Caes. 34;
75).
[28] Pharsalus, August 9 (= June 7 corrected calendar) 48 B.C.
(Caes., B. C., 3, 75-99; App. 2, 64-82; Dio 41, 51-63; CIL 1^2 p.
324).
[29] Referring to the Bellum Alexandrinum. In point of fact,
Caesar left Egypt nominally free to be ruled by Cleopatra.
[30] The Black Sea. The reference is to the battle at Zela with
Pharnaces, son of Mithradates, whom he overcame on August 2/May
21, 47 B.C. (CIL 1^2 p. 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 African disturbance, but that with the lapse of
time he seems to have become more indulgent toward them.
[34] This is the first indication that Agrippa was already a
companion of Octavius. See Sen., Epis., 15, 2, 46.
8. [35] Caesar had 4 triumphs: for Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, and
Africa (Liv., Epit., 115; App., 2, 101; Dio 43, 19).
[36] Octavius was, through his mother, grandson of Caesar’s
sister Julia. Suetonius (Caes. 83, 1) is explicit in stating
that Caesar’s will whereby Octavius was adopted as Caesar’s
son, was made on September 13, 45 B.C. Nicolaus has here either
anticipated this accepted date by something more than a year, or
else he had access to a statement in Augustus’ memoirs to the
effect that Octavius knew of the existence of an earlier will in
which he had been made Caesar’s adopted son.
[37] Nicolaus is probably referring to the ‘cognomen imperatoris’
and not to the ‘praenomen imperatoris.’ According to Dio 43, 44,
the ‘praenomen imperatoris’ was not conferred upon Caesar until
after the battle of Munda, some seven months later. However, if
Nicolaus felt any unusual significance in the title Imperator as
here mentioned, we have an indication that Caesar actually held
the new title prior to the date given by Dio. Suetonius (Caes.
76) including ‘praenomen imperatoris’ in a group of various
honors conferred upon Caesar, gives no date or correlative
occurrence in this connection. See McFayden, The History of the
Title Imperator under the Roman Empire, Chicago 1920, pp. 7 ff.
9. [38] The plays and games (Cic., Fam. 12, 18, 2; Livy, Epit.,
115; Dio 43, 22-24; App. 2, 102; Plut., Caes., 55; Suet., Aug.,
39; Vell. 2, 56) were given immediately after Caesar’s dedication
of the temple to Venus Genetrix on September 26, (= July 20
corrected calendar) 46 B.C. Augustus continued these games
annually as the ‘ludi Victoriae Caesaris’ on July 25. Vergil
seems to have them in mind in writing Aeneid 5 and Catalepton 14,
see Class. Quart. 14, p. 156. The ludi Romani and ludi Graeci
were given separately (Suet., Aug. 45; Tac., Annal. 14, 15). See
also CIL 6, 32323; Dessau, Ins. Lat., 5050, an account of the
Ludi Saeculares of 17 B.C. In addition to the Theatre of Pompey,
a temporary wooden stage was erected for the ludi Latini in 46
B.C. as in 17 B.C. (line 154 of the inscription).
[39] The effects of the sunstroke were, however, apparently
lasting throughout Octavius’ life. He was unable to withstand
the Italian sun even in winter, and never went out into the open
without a hat (Suet., Aug., 82).
10. [40] To Spain. He started apparently in November of 46 B.C. He
was still in Rome on September 24 (Cic., Fam., 6, 14, 2). Nearly
a month was consumed in his journey thither (Strabo 3, 4, 9; App.
2, 103; Suet., Caes., 56).
[41] Sextus Pompeius had 11 legions in all. Caesar had sent to
Cicero in January, 45 B.C., a copy of a letter which he had
received from L. Vibius Paciaecus, one of his subordinates in
Spain who was in a position to know, and who gave this figure
(Cic., Fam., 6, 18, 2).
[42] Seven months had not elapsed between Caesar’s departure from
Rome and the battle of Munda (March 17, 45 B.C.).
11. [43] Carteia, on the Bay of Gibraltar. Octavius must have
arrived after the battle of Munda had taken place, otherwise
Nicolaus certainly would have mentioned his presence at that
encounter, Caesar’s last successful one. Caesar wrote to Cicero
from Hispalis, his next stopping point (Caes., B. Hisp., 39) on
April 30 (Cic., Att., 13, 20, 1). Octavius’ arrival at Carteia
was therefore some time in May.
[44] σύνεσιν. There seems to be no valid reason for altering the
text, with Müller, to σύντασιν, ‘exertions’.
12. [45] Lacuna of 2 pages. The information embodied in chapters
10-12 is unique with Nicolaus and hence does not permit of any
basis for comparison with other writers. Suet., Aug., 8 makes
the brief statement that Octavian proceeded to Spain to join
his great-uncle after recovering from his illness; Vell. 2,
59, 3 briefly notes that Octavius was with Caesar, and Dio 43,
41, in alluding to the prodigy of the sprouting palm, seems to
infer that Octavius was present during the entire expedition,
including Munda. This portion of Nicolaus’ biography shows
every indication of having been compiled with much dependence
upon Augustus’ memoirs. It is possible that Nicolaus enlarged
upon the importance of Octavius’ actions in these chapters over
and above the material which he found in Augustus’ memoirs;
however, the tone of the Monumentum Ancyranum shows that false
modesty, at least, was not over-evident in the character of the
autobiographer in that case, and it is conceivable therefore that
Nicolaus has repeated Augustus’ words much as he found them.
13. [46] ἀρ]γυροῦ is Müller’s restoration. The reference, if this
restoration is correct, apparently is to a silver table-service.
Dindorf attempts no restoration, but prints simply γύρου--‘of a
circle’.
[47] C. Claudius Marcellus, consul in 50 B.C., and at that time
a vigorous opponent of Julius Caesar (Cic., Brut., 64, 229;
Plin., N. H., 2, 147; Suet., Caes., 29; App. 2, 26; Dio 40,
44; Pauly-Wissowa, Claudius, 216). He and the members of his
immediate family were warmly congratulated by Cicero at the time
of his attainment of the office of consul (Cic., Fam., 15, 7;
15, 8; 15, 9; 15, 10; 15, 11), and Cicero later mentioned him as
being in accord, apparently at least, with his own views (Cic.,
Att., 10, 12, 3).
When the civil war broke out he remained in Italy, coming to
terms with Caesar. After Caesar’s death he gave his support to
his young brother-in-law Octavian. The family can be traced back
8 generations to M. Claudius Marcellus, consul in 331 B.C.
[48] Drawn, as has been noted (chap. 8, note 36) on September
13, 45 B.C. This passage proves that Nicolaus knew the facts
about the will and that the statement in chap. 8 is at least
careless.
[49] The statement as to the proportion of Octavius’ inheritance
agrees with Suet., Caes., 83, but is at variance with Liv.,
Epit., 116, where one half of the total is assigned to Octavius.
Q. Pedius and L. Pinarius were the other beneficiaries (Suet.,
Caes., 83, 2; App. 3, 22; 23; 94; Plin., N. H., 35, 21).
14. [50] Pseudo-Marius, otherwise Herophilus or Amatius, was a
well-known character (Cic., Att., 12, 49, 1; 14, 6, 1; Phil. 1,
2, 5; App. 3, 2). After Caesar’s death he erected an altar or
column on the place where Caesar’s body had been burned and was
responsible for much rioting there. Antony finally put him to
death, to the relief of Cicero (Cic., Att., 14, 7, 1; 14, 8, 1;
App. 3, 3); see also Val. Max. 9, 15, 1; Liv., Epit., 116.
[51] Caesar’s aunt, Julia, who died in 68 B.C., was the wife of
the great C. Marius (Plut., Caes., 1, 1).
15. [52] Caesar, not the senate, declared Octavius a patrician. L.
Cassius, tribune in 44 B.C. (Cic., Phil., 3, 23), introduced a
special decree whereby the senate granted Caesar the power of
declaring persons of his choice to be patricians (Tac., Ann.,
11, 25; Suet., Caes., 41; Dio 43, 47, 3). One of those chosen
thus was Octavius (Suet., Aug., 2; Dio 45, 2, 7); see E. Meyer,
Caesars Monarchie, etc. Stuttgart 1919, p. 464.
[53] Excerptor’s note.
16. [54] Apollonia. According to Nicolaus, Octavius left Rome in
December, and was therefore in Apollonia for 3 months before
the murder of Caesar. This is at variance with App. 3, 9, where
Octavius is said to have been in Apollonia for 6 months. In the
latter case he would have had to leave Rome immediately after
his return from Spain, which is not very probable in view of the
plausible details given by Nicolaus in the preceding chapter.
The use of the word ἐνταυθοῖ (Müller), ἐνταῦθα (Dindorf) with
reference to Apollonia, gives the impression that Nicolaus wrote
the ‘Life of Augustus’ at that place. Chapters 16 and 17 are
written with considerable detail concerning the behavior of the
inhabitants just prior to Octavius’ departure, and the account
is, among the historians, unique with Nicolaus. The 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.