« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
past. The annual inundation of the Nile too was over; and this would not be the case before the same period in general. The Alexandrine war, then, appears to have been begun towards the end of the Julian September, U. C. 706.
The submission of Alexandria, itself, which would be virtually the close of the contest, is dated by the calendars March 6, U. C. 707*. But the entire duration of Cæsar's residence in Egypt is estimated by Appian at not less than nine months h: and that this computation bears date from the time of his arrival, appears from the context of Appian; and also from the fact that Cleopatra, with whom he became acquainted soon after his arrival, was delivered of a son by him soon after his departure. Though he might have arrived therefore, about the middle of August, and reduced Alexandria to submission by the sixth of March; it is nothing incredible that he should still have prolonged his residence in Egypt, for the sake of the society of Cleopatra, to the middle of May.
It is stated in the Paschal chronicle k, that the autovouía of the city of Antioch bore date from the 20th of Artemisius, or iv Idus of May, in consequence of an edict of Julius Cæsar's, which was received and recited on that day, and followed by his proclamation as dictator or emperor, on the 23rd of the same month. Now the years of Antioch bear date from the era of this auTOVOμía; the epoch of which is fixed by the concurrent testimony of coins and history, to the autumnal quarter of U. C. 705. But as Cæsar could not possibly issue any such edict in the first year of the era, the spring
*The Maffæan calendar dates the reduction of Alexandria, March 27.
g Ibid. 5, 6, 7. nius, 54. ki. 354. 1. 19.
h B. C. ii. 90.
i Plutarch, Julius Cæsar, 49. Anto
quarter of U. C. 706, it follows that it must have been issued in the next, U. C. 707, or in some later year: and that it was out of compliment to its author merely, that the epoch of the era was made to bear date from the autumnal quarter of U. C. 705, not of U. C. 706. The former was the first year of Cæsar's dictatorship; and from that time to his death, in March, U. C. 710, he was reckoned at Antioch to have reigned four years and seven months; a computation, which dated from September, U. C. 705, would be substantially correct. The receipt of this edict at Antioch, May 12, U. C. 707, would be demonstrative proof that Cæsar was still in Egypt, at the beginning of that month *.
We know no more of the movements of Cæsar after this, than that he was actually at Antioch1 on or about July 18, U. C. 707, and at Ziela, in Cappadocia, on the second of August, when he defeated Pharnaces. His freedman, Philotimus, dispatched to Italy while he was still in Egypt, came to Rhodes on his way, v Kal. Juniasm; which implies that he had left Egypt
* Was iv Ides of May U. C. 707, the date of this rescript of Cæsar's; that is, May 12 in the year of Numa? and was Artemisius 20 the day of the month coinciding with it in the year of Antioch? But when did Artemisius in the year of Antioch at this time begin? Subsequently, and after the Julian calendar had been adopted in Asia, Artemisius, in the year of Pergamus, is known to have begun March 25: and its 20 would coincide with April 13, which in the year of Numa would be just 28 days before May 12. This would imply that
1 Cicero, ad Atticum, xi. 20. xi. 23.
the difference between a certain date in the rectified year, and a corresponding one in that of Numa, U. C. 707, was but 28 days; which is so improbable, as almost necessarily to require us to suppose that May 12 was not the date of Cæsar's rescript merely, but the actual date in the Roman rectified year corresponding to the same in the year of Antioch as adapted to it. In this case, Artemisius 1 coincided with April 23; as it might do, if it was the eighth month in the civil year of Antioch, though the seventh in that of Pergamus.
Cicero, Oratio pro Ligario, 3. Ad Atticum,
three or four days before: all which is inconsistent with the hypothesis that Cæsar did not leave Egypt before the end of May.
There is no alternative in short, except to suppose either that the ancient calendars referred to formerly, have misrepresented the date of the battle, or that the date which they exhibit is the rectified date; as September 22 or 23 may be the nominal. That great uncertainty hung over the date of this celebrated battle, within an hundred years after the event, is indeed implied by Lucan :
Cedant feralia nomina Cannæ,
Tempora signavit leviorum Roma malorum:
We find Velleius Paterculus complaining of a similar uncertainty, within less than that time, about the age of Pompey himself at the period of his death ", of which Plutarch, in Vita, furnishes an instance. It would be absurd, however, to suppose the true date was never known; and little less so to assume that it might have been forgotten too early to be noted in the Kalendaria in question; which appear to have been contemporary, and to belong in common to the reign of Augustus or Tiberius, especially the Antiatine and the Amiter
The confusion of the times, from the breaking out of the civil war to the year of the rectification of the calendar, may, perhaps, render it doubtful, whether the usual intercalation would be observed in U. C. 706. But Cæsar himself was the pontifex maximus at that
n Lib. ii. 53. o Capp. 6. 7. Pompey is said to be 23. U. C. 671, Consule Scipione, which is correct. Hence he would be 24. U. C. 672. (12.) yet, 46, it is said he was 40 only at his Triumph; when he was in reality 45: for U. C. 693 -648=45: cap. 64. Plutarch makes him 58. U.C. 706, which is correct, yet (79) fifty-nine complete at his death, the same year.
time *; and it was the duty of the pontifical college in particular to see that the intercalations were duly made. There is authority enough to prove that U. C. 702, U. C. 704, and U. C. 708, were regular intercalary years: on which principle, U. C. 706 would be, or should have been, so too.
First-it appears from Asconii Præfatio in Orationem pro Milone, that U. C. 702, when Pompey was consul iii. sine collega, was intercalated. Pompey himself was appointed consul v Kal. Martias, mense interkalario and the Oratio pro Milone was delivered vi Ides of April afterwards ↑.
For the next year, Cicero writes to Atticus, from his province, Ut simus annui, ne intercaletur quidem P: again, in a letter written on the Ides of February, U. C. 704: Cum scies Romæ intercalatum sit necne 9. So likewise: Ea sic observabo, quasi intercalatum non sit. And that there was the usual intercalation, U. C. 704, whether Cicero wished it or not, appears from Dios. Curio, says Dio, to serve a party purpose in behalf of Cæsar, proposed another intercalary month to be inserted that year: ἠξίου μῆνα ἄλλον . . . ἐπεμβληθῆναι. There had been one, then, inserted previously.
As to the year U. C. 708, it was intercalated, according to Suetonius, ex consuetudine *.
The irregularity of the intercalations, generally speaking, of which Suetonius complains loc. cit. renders it superfluous to go much further back, in tracing out the series of such years, for any length of time. The first instance of intercalation upon record, according to Varro, as quoted by Macrobius, was Coss. Pinario et Furio, U.C.282: according to Fulvius, also quoted, was much later, U. C. 562, or 563. The Fasti triumphales and consulares notice some such years. B. C. 189 was an intercalated year. Lucius Scipio Asiaticus triumphed that year, Mense intercalario, pridie Kalendas Martias". B. C. 167 was intercalated Postridie Terminalia : and B. C. 170 was the same, Tertio die post Terminalia y.
In these last instances, there were three years between two successive intercalations; which does not of itself imply any irregularity. The year of Numa " consisting of 355 days, not of 354, was ten days and six hours, not eleven days and six hours, less than a Julian one of 365 days and six hours. But the rule, originally, was to intercalate first 22 days, and then 23, alternately, every two years, the place of the intercalation being after Feb. 23: Terminalibus jam peractis. Four such intercalations in eight years would amount to ninety days; but the corresponding excess of eight Julian over eight of Numa's years would amount only to eighty-two: a difference which in 24 years, or three periods of eight years, would be equal to 24 days.
*The intercalation extraordinary in this year, or that in consequence of the rectification of the calendar, an intercalation
made at twice, is alluded to by Cicero, Ad Fam. vi. 14: Ego idem tamen, cum a. d. v Kalendas intercalares priores, &c.
y xliii. II.
Cf. Solini Polyhistor, i. §. 43. Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvi. 1. 447. Servius, Ad Æneid. v. 49. Macrobius, i. 14. u Livy, xxxvii. 59. * xlv. 44. Macrobius, i. 13.