[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(App. 5, 80-81), and in the year 36 he was superseded by Agrippa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.