TOHER, MARK, The Date of Nicolaus' "Bios Kaisaros" [Greek] , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:2 (1985:Summer) p.199 The Date of Nicolaus' Bio~ Kai(Tapo~ Mark Toher L IVEL Y DISCUSSION has already been generated by the recent publication of new inscriptions from Aphrodisias~ lone com­ mentator has pointed out that it will be some time before consensus is reached on the date and context of many of these.2 The presentation of new material often provokes reconsideration of old and neglected issues; one such is the date of the biography of Augus­ tus by Nicolaus of Damascus. A significantly later terminus post quem for the composition of this work is indicated, if the proposed date for a letter of Octavian preserved at Aphrodisias is correct. A re-exam­ ination of the evidence shows that a number of assumptions that have been made about the relationship of the Bios to the lost auto­ biography of Augustus are implausible, and that a much later date of composition is indeed likely. For the past sixty years there has been general acceptance of F. Jacoby's persuasive and attractive thesis that the Bios Kaisaros of Nicolaus was written in the late 20's B.C., and followed in form and content the recently-completed Latin autobiography of Augustus.3 The crux of Jacoby's argument was his contention that references to 1 J. Reynolds, Aphrodisias and Rome (JRS Monographs 1 [1982]); G. W. Bowersock, Gnomon 56 (1984) 48-53; E. Badian, "Notes on a New List of Roman Senators," ZPE 55 (1984) 101-14, and "Notes on Some Documents from Aphrodisias Concerning Octavian," GRBS 25 (1984) 157-70. I am indebted to Professor Bowersock for bring­ ing to my attention the relevance of Reynolds' document 13 to the BiOS, and to Profes­ sor Badian for generously providing me with material otherwise unavailable. Charles Fornara and Kurt Raaflaub each read an earlier version of this article, and I am grateful to them for their helpful advice and criticism. 2 Badian, GRBS (supra n.!) 157. 3 The fragments are FGrHist 90FFI25-30. Previous to Jacoby a much later date of composition had been generally maintained. C. MUller, FHG III (1849) 434 n.l, pro­ posed a date of co 12 B.C. based on the use of EVTaV(JOL in F130.37, a statement that seemed to imply that Nicolaus had been composing the Bios at Apollonia while on his first trip to Rome. MUller was followed in his dating by O. Schmidt, Die letzen Kampje der romischen Republik (Jahr.j class. Phil. Supp\. 13 [Leipzig 1884]) 684f; A. von Gut­ schmid, Kleine Schriften V (Leipzig 1894) 549; and, more recently, G. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford 1965) 135. For a convincing refutation of the arguments for this date cf Jacoby ad FF125-30 (p.263). Others have supposed that the Bios was written after the death of Augustus: 1. Asbach, RhM 37 (1882) 297, R. La­ queur, RE 17.1 (1936) 406 s. v. "Nikolaos (20) von Damaskos," and W. Steidle, Sueton und die antike Biographie (Munich 1951) 134. Cf n.5 infra. 199 TOHER, MARK, The Date of Nicolaus' "Bios Kaisaros" [Greek] , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:2 (1985:Summer) p.199 200 THE DATE OF NICOLAUS' BIOI: KAII:APOI: military conquests in the panegyric prooemium of the Bios could only refer to campaigns conducted by Octavian personally; consequently, the campaigns against the Pannonians and Illyrians were those of Octavian in 35 B.C., and mention of the pacification of peoples up to the Rhine referred to Octavian's campaign in Gaul in 34.4 In so arguing, Jacoby avoided the earlier conclusion that the reference EJI'TO~ ·p.ryJlOV must indicate a time around or before 12 B.C. or after A. D. 10, the two dates during the Principate when Roman troops were not consistently beyond the Rhine. Jacoby then proposed 27 B.C. and the assumption of the title Augustus as a suitable terminal date for the Bios. He believed that Nicolaus wrote his work in the late twenties B.C., when the autobiography of Augustus was in cir­ culation, and before he began work on his long universal history. On the basis of this reconstruction Jacoby was able to maintain (p.264) that the Bios closely reflected the recently completed autobiography of Augustus, and may, in fact, have been a Greek paraphrase of that document for the Eastern peoples of the Empire.5 As a consequence of Jacoby's thesis, it seemed possible to recog­ nize, at least in part, the immense debt of Nicolaus' Bios to the lost autobiography of Augustus. Jacoby himself thought he could identify passages that must have come from the autobiography.6 H. Malco­ vati, in her introduction to the fragments of Augustus' writings, states that part of Augustus' autobiography included anecdotes from his 'Jugendgeschichte'.7 Since there is no evidence of such material in the extant remains of the autobiography, Malcovati can only have reached her conclusion by deduction from such anecdotes as are found in the Bios. E. Gabba, in a recent essay on Augustus and the historians, asserts that it is now generally agreed that the Bios was 4 Cf, FI25.1: 6JJI 8E 7TP0'TEPOJI ov8E OJlO~Ta 7I'm(TTaJl'TO 0;' /XJI(JPW1rOt OOOE nJlo~ VmlKOOt E-yEJlOJl'TO &a ILvYIIJ:ll~, ";'f.Upwu&,.uJlO~ O17'O(TOt EJI'TO~ 'P",JlOV 7rOTa/-LOV Ka'TOt­ KOVu'" tnrEP'TE 'TOJI lOJlwJI 17'OJI'TOJI Kat 'Ta llivpu;)JI -yEJITI. Jacoby ad loc. (p.263): "von eigenen waffentaten des kaisers, nicht von denen seiner legaten, muss nach dem gan­ zen gehalt der stelle die rede gewesen sein." 5 Since the publication of Jacoby's commentary, Laqueur (supra n.3) argued for a date after the death of Augustus on the basis of the aorist tense of some of the verbs in the prooemium; Steidle (supra n.3) believed that the text reflected a period of peace, and for this reason was post-Augustan. The effectiveness of these arguments can be measured by the lack of recognition they have received. Laqueur especially vitiates his arguments for the date and structure of the Bios by asserting (422f) that we have the Bios essentially as Nicolaus wrote it. This is in obvious contradiction to state­ ments in the document itself that clearly indicate that events and affairs were narrated that are not in the extant text; cf, F 126.2 and F 130.58. 6 Cf, his comments on FI26.3, FI27.5f, FI28.31, F130.37-46, 55, 68, 95-97, 110- 14, 124, 136. 7 H. Malcovati, Imperatoris Caesaris August; Operum Fragmenta (Turin 1967) xlviii. TOHER, MARK, The Date of Nicolaus' "Bios Kaisaros" [Greek] , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:2 (1985:Summer) p.199 MARK TOHER 201 written between 25 and 20 B.C. and was a "free paraphrase" of Au­ gustus' autobiography.s It is clear then that the issue of the date of composition of the Bios has significance beyond simply establishing the chronological order of the corpus of a secondary author. The newly-published Aphrodisias documents, in connection with other evidence, now allow a secure terminus post quem to be estab­ lished from the text itself. In F l30.45 Nicolaus states that Augustus gave eleutheria and ateleia to Illyrian Apollonia for the devotion it had shown him during his stay there just before the assassination of C ''A \ \ ' ~ , , < >' , , \(J , • , aesar: 7TO~~WVUXTa<; uE TOTE TE E7T71VEUE Kat 7TapE~ WV EL<; Trw apXTJV E).,EV(JEpiaV TE aVToi'<; Kat aTEf).,ELav ... E7TL8ov<;. Document l3 of the Aphrodisias inscriptions, a letter of Octavian rejecting a request by the Samians for such privileges, gives important evidence concern­ ing the date of the grant to Apollonia: AUTOKP(hwp KatO"ap (}EOV 'lovAiov vio.:; AVYOVO"TO':; !.a"uOt.:; tJTrO TO , /:.' ., ,r, a<:,UlJJ..UX. V7TEypa'l'EV' l/;EO"TLV V/.LEtV aUTOt.:; opav OTL TO cjxAav(}pW7Tov rij.:; EAEv(}Epia.:; OUBEV" BEBwKa B-r,f..U!J 7TAT,V T4J TWV 'AcPpoiiEunEwv 0':; EV T4J 7TOAEf..U!J TeX E~ cPpov-r,crar; BOpulAwTor; BtU TT,V , It ...... ~ , , 7TpO':; "fIJ..UX.r; EVVOLaV EYEVETO' , " ... ' " I A...~ I () ,,,, ov yap EO"TLV oLKawv TO 7TaVTWV f.LEYLO"TOV '/Al\.av pW7TOV ELK"{/ KaL , , I Iy () " ... ' XWPL':; aLTLa':; xapL<:,Eo" at. EYW oE It ,... , , ...... 'f3 \. I ",... I 1" e ...... Vf.LELV f.LEV EVVOW KaL OVI\.OL/.L"fIV av TTl YVVaLKL /.LOV V7TEP VJLWV O"7TOV- Ba'ovO"'!1 Xapi,EO"(}at aAAa oux WerTE KaTaAVO"at iT,V O"VV-r,(}ELaV /.LOV· ouBe "lap iWV XP"fI~iWV /.LOt /LEAH & ei.:; TOV AOyO~ 01TWI; O"Vaya~ E1Tt Kawapa Kat We; TO crU/ .. t1Tall KaTELpYelUaIlTO, Tel TE #UTa TaVTa 1Tpax8EIITa, KLIIT/8EIITWII nOli OAWII. BLE~ELI-U OVII aVrT,1I TE 1TPWrOIl Ka80TL EyEllETO Kat 01TWI;, Tel~ TE alTia~ v~' WII TOHER, MARK, The Date of Nicolaus' "Bios Kaisaros" [Greek] , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:2 (1985:Summer) p.199 MARK TO HER 205 rest of the Bios, but accord well with the dramatic and pathetic man­ ner we find in a number of fragments from the history. In the di­ gression, T'lJXTI and /-Wtpa are the presiding factors (F 130.83), and there is concentration on the vicissitudes of fortune that can accom­ pany the career of a great man (F130.95). The two longest fragments of the universal history (F66 and F68) each demonstrate Nicolaus' propensity to inject pathos and drama into his writing. This is espe­ cially clear in the account of the pyre of Croesus: although based essentially on Herodotus, the story is greatly embellished by Nico­ laus.21 There must have been some description of Caesar's assassina­ tion in the Bios, for it was a significant crisis in Octavian's career and legitimated his entrance into public life at Rome.22 It is probable that Nicolaus, when faced with the necessity of retelling this episode in the Bios, depended on his previous account. Finally, scholars have failed to note just what an historiographical anomaly the Bios becomes in Jacoby's analysis. There is no secure precedent in classical antiquity for the publication of a partial bio­ graphy during the lifetime of its subject.23 Moreover, all evidence UVCrTaCFa TOCFOVl>E E1TEfY/A.9EV· E7TEtTa l>e 7TEpi TOV iTEPOV Kalnapo<;, oV EVEKa Ol>E d A.oyo<; WPI-'TJTat, 07TW<; TE 7TapTjA.9Ev ei<; TIjv apx.-r,v Kai, E7TEtl>-r, aVT' EKEivov KaTECFTTJ, 07TOCFa [pya 7ToA.EI-'OV Kai eiPT/VTJ<; a7TEl>Ei~aTo (F130.58). 21 Although the accounts in Herodotus 0.86) and in Nicolaus (F68) are essentially the same in outline, they differ greatly in their presentation and emphasis: Herodotus' version illustrates the retribution of the gods for the good fortune that Croesus claimed with such hubris; Nicolaus presents a scene full of pathos by inventing a dialogue between Croesus and his formerly mute son, and by giving an expanded and graphic depiction of the crowd of spectators and the rainstorm that receive only cursory men­ tion in Herodotus. In this way, he turns an old tradition into a drama for his reader. See also H. W. Parke, "Croesus and Delphi," GRBS 25 (984) 226f. 22 Jacoby p.272 and Blumenthal (supra n.8) 124f. 23 Leo (supra n.18) 195-98 devised an elaborate theory based on a statement in Nepos' life of Atticus (hactenus Attico vivo edita a nobis sunt, 19.1) that there were two 'editions' of Nepos' Lives, each containing a life of Atticus, one published during the lifetime of Atticus and a second edition published after his death. This theory has been accepted by every standard work that deals with the matter; full analysis must await another context, but the crucial clause need not require that Nepos had issued a ver­ sion of the biography of Atticus during the subject's lifetime. It is better to take the verb edo in a more general sense of what Nepos had produced or written at the time of Atticus' death-which is to say, that portion of the biography he had composed but not necessarily issued. It then becomes clear that this passage has no temporal significance. It rather indicates that Nepos is introducing another section of his biography that will deal with the death of Atticus; thus the absolute, Attico vivo. Although such a state­ ment might seem peculiar in a biography, one must remember that the Atticus biog­ raphy is the only one in the collection of a contemporary of the reader. A reference to the point at which he died would have been quite intelligible, forming as it does a bridge to the final chapters that will deal with the manner of his death. For similar uses of hactenus as a bridge to a new topic cJ Cic. Div. 2.24.53 and the famous passage at Suet. Cal. 22. An elaborate analysis of the possible meanings of edo in this passage can TOHER, MARK, The Date of Nicolaus' "Bios Kaisaros" [Greek] , Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 26:2 (1985:Summer) p.199 206 THE DATE OF NICOLAUS' BIOI. KAII.APOI. indicates that Nicolaus was a devout Peripatetic,24 and any working hypothesis must suppose that he wrote in the Peripatetic biographical tradition.25 This supposition is confirmed by Nicolaus' emphasis on the deeds, 'T(l: 7rE11'pa'YJLEJla, of Augustus (cj. F126.2 and F130.58)-a clear echo of the Peripatetic concern with illustrating the character of a man, his E8o~, through analysis of his deeds, or 1TP&:~Et~.26 Because so little of the autobiography of Augustus is preserved, it is not a significant argument to note that there is no correspondence between any of the fragments of the Bios and Augustus' work. At the same time, such a paucity of evidence prohibits the assumption that the Bios substantially reflects any part of the autobiography. It is clear that we can never know what, if any, relationship there was between the Bios and Augustus' autobiography; we can only deduce probabilities. But evidence from the Aphrodisias inscription, from the text of the Bios itself, and the canons of Greek biographical writing all seem to indicate a date of composition and publication some­ what later than that supposed by Jacoby, probably a date after the death of Augustus. The burden of proof to the contrary must lie with those who believe there was a close correspondence between the two books. UNION COLLEGE June, 1985 be found in H. Rahn, Hermes 85 (1957) 205-15. Even if one accepts the idea that Nepos was unique in publishing a biography during the lifetime of his subject, it re­ mains that it was the overwhelming practice in the ancient world not to issue a biog­ raphy until after the death of the subject. 24 In F 132 he refers to himself as a ~7jAwrT," 'APUTToTEAOlJ<;; for other evidence of Nicolaus' reputation as Peripatetic cf TIl and FF73, 77, 78, 94, 95. For an analysis and translation of the fragments of Nicolaus' work on the philosophy of Aristotle, cf H. J. Drossart Lulofs, Nicolaus Damescenus on the Philosophy of Aristotle (Leiden 1965). 25 Leo (supra n.18) 190ff; cf also A. Momigliano, The Development of Greek Biog­ raphy (Harvard 1971) 86, and Second Thoughts on Greek Biography (Amsterdam/Lon­ don 1971) 13. 26 Cf Leo (supra n.18) 188-90 for a full discussion of Aristotle's ethical theories as they relate to biography.