In the tenth century ad the Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus conceived a peculiar project, to preserve all historical knowledge by reducing it to categorized excerpts from the classical historians. Among the remains of this prodigious undertaking are the excerpts of a biographical work dealing with the early life of Augustus by a friend of the Princeps, Nicolaus of Damascus. These excerpts deal with crucial events in the last decades of the Roman Republic and provide a singular account of the most notorious event in Roman history. For nearly a century the edition of the fragments of Nicolaus by Jacoby in his Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker has endured as the authoritative text and analysis of the Bios Kaisaros – and with good reason, given that scholar's akribea and comprehensive knowledge of Greek historiography. And although there have been five editions of the Bios in four languages since Jacoby, all have generally followed him in their Greek texts, dating and basic understanding of the nature of the work. Although I differ with Jacoby on the fundamental questions of the date of the Bios and the significance of how it relates to the autobiography of Augustus, long acquaintance with just one of the fragmentary authors in Jacoby's collection has only enhanced my admiration and wonder for that indispensable work of scholarship. Nevertheless, the analysis here is based on the ample evidence for the career of Nicolaus found in the fragments of his autobiography and in the works of Josephus to reconstruct when and why Nicolaus undertook his work on Augustus. A significant consideration throughout is the Bios as a literary artifact in relation to its historiographical context. This is not an issue Jacoby neglected, but in general work on the Bios has tended to treat it as a text to be mined for its “sources” (especially in the scholarship before Jacoby's edition) or used to confirm or contradict facts of Roman history found in other ancient sources.

The Greek text of Nicolaus has had the benefit of excellent editors. My text is based on an examination of photocopies of the two codices of the Bios, but it differs very little from the texts of de Boor and Buttner-Wobst found in the editio princeps of Constantine's encyclopedia and that of Jacoby.

About his Private Life and Education

SUDA

Ex. 1: Antipater: The father of Nicolaus of Damascus the historian, who took Stratonice, the mother of Nicolaus, as his wife. The family was famous in Damascus for its prudence and brilliance in other respects. Although the family excelled others by far in wealth, they scarcely exulted in it, and thought it of little account so long as they were held second to none in good repute. (2) Furthermore, Antipater, who was also preeminent for his eloquence, never harmed anyone at all by it, and in numerous instances benefited not only the whole city but also many of its citizens. In his pursuit of justice Antipater was second to none, he arbitrated a great number of private disputes between citizens and frequently negotiated with surrounding rulers on behalf of the city, and for this all of the citizens honored him. He was entrusted with a great number of embassies and positions of administration and stewardship, and held all the offices in the city. (3) At the end of his life he gave no instructions to his son Nicolaus and Nicolaus’ brother Ptolemaeus other than to dedicate to Zeus a censer that he had vowed to the god when he should die, demonstrating (I think) that it is necessary that even the moribund maintain piety toward the gods, even though they have no prospect of further enjoyment of life.

Ex. 2: Nicolaus of Damascus: friend of Herod, king of the Jews, and of Augustus Caesar; he was a Peripatetic or Platonic philosopher. He wrote a universal history in eighty books and an account of the early training of Caesar. (In return, Caesar saluted Nicolaus by calling the flat-cakes that Nicolaus sent to him “nicolaoi,” and they are still called by this name.) He also wrote about his own life and training. This man was a native of Damascus who had been reared in the rest of learning because his father had been adamant about this since he had accrued fame and fortune as a result of his own education. Nicolaus exalted his father's praise of learning, since he had an indescribable love for it and especially because he was endowed with no common nature and character.

FROM THE SAME (AUTHOR) ON THE EARLY TRAINING OF CAESAR

Ex. I (J 125=M 99 I) (1) Men addressed him in this way out of respect for his high standing, and people spread over the islands and the mainland, distributed throughout their cities and nations, honor him with temples and sacrifices in accordance with the magnitude of his virtue and in return for his benefactions to them. After he attained the highest degree of power and prudence, this man ruled over the most people in the memory of men: he extended the boundary of Roman power to its farthest extent and not only placed the Greeks and foreign populations under the secure control of Rome but he also secured their dispositions. He did this at first by arms but afterwards even without arms as he persuaded them to voluntary obedience through the manifest demonstration of his benevolence. Of populations whose names men had never heard and which had never been subjugated in the memory of man, having pacified so many as live within the River Rhine as well as [those] beyond the Ionian Sea and the Illyrian peoples (they are called the Pannonians and the Dacians) * * * (Refer to [the section] “On Brave Deeds”)

Ex. II (J 126=M 99 II) (2) To recount the power of this man's wisdom and excellence, and how he managed the government at Rome and conducted great wars both domestic and foreign, presents a challenge for those men who would declaim and write about them so that they themselves would become distinguished through his noble deeds. However, I will relate his achievements so that it will be possible for everyone to know the truth. Before that, I will give an account of his lineage, character and ancestry, and of his rearing as a child and the training by which he became such a great man. (3) His father was Gaius Octavius, a man of the senatorial class. Octavius and his ancestors were very famous for their wealth and honesty, and this money was left to Octavius’ son when he was orphaned. The boy's appointed guardians squandered the money left to him, but he refrained from prosecuting them in court and managed with the money that remained.

I LIFE AND CAREER OF NICOLAUS

Thanks to excerpts that survive from N.'s autobiography (IB) and Josephus’ accounts of his career at the court of Herod the Great, a great deal more is known about N. than about the vast majority of ancient writers. The autobiography offers significant information about N.'s lineage, education, opinions and self-representation, while Josephus in his Antiquitates Judaicae presents a substantial account of N.'s career in Jerusalem in the last decade of Herod's reign. It is a collection of evidence that provides insight into how N.'s relationships with Herod and Augustus developed; why certain themes are prominent in the Bios; and how N. came to have such a dispassionate view of the assassins and their plot against Caesar while at the same time giving full approval to Octavian's ambition to attain Caesar's power.

(i) Lineage, Education and Career to 14 bc

According to his autobiography (IB 1.1–3), N. was the son of a member of the governing and social elite of Damascus. His father Antipater had held all local offices in the city, he was an accomplished orator and highly respected for his talent as an emissary to neighboring states. The family's piety toward the Greek gods, their names (although names are no guarantee of ethnic origin) and all other evidence concerning the family of N. suggest that if they were not Greek by ethnicity, they certainly were intellectually and culturally, as most likely was their social milieu in Damascus. But this passage on the lineage of N. constitutes some of our earliest evidence for the social character of Damascus, and so it is difficult to say much more than what it offers about the cultural context in which N. spent his youth.

N. was born ca. 64 bc, since he says that he was around sixty years old when he journeyed to Rome after the death of Herod in 4 bc (IB 6.8), and the autobiography (IB 2) provides a fulsome description of his education and devotion to the philosophy of Aristotle. Although claims of precocious intellectual development seem to have been a trope in ancient autobiography and encomiastic biography, N.'s comments on his education and teaching are significant.