[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 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.