¹ On the date of the speech, see Marinone, N., Cronologia Ciceroniana (Bologna, 2004 ²), 253, 255Google Scholar and Manuwald, G., Cicero, Philippics 3–9 (Berlin, 2007), 2.25–6, 2.1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² The statue of Sulpicius survived into the second century a.d. (Digest 1.2.2.43).

³ See also Plin. HN 34.24.

⁴ Phil. 9.5 nunc ad tantae familiae memoriam sola restat (restaret MSS).

⁵ See inter alia Long, G., M. Tullii Ciceronis orationes (London, 1858), 4.617Google Scholar; King, J.R., The Philippic Orations of M. Tullius Cicero (Oxford, 1868), 215 Google Scholar; Sternkopf, W., Ciceros siebente, achte, neunte und zehnte Philippische Rede (Berlin, 1913), 73 Google Scholar; F. Münzer, RE 17.1825 s.v. M. Octavius (33); Bailey, D.R. Shackleton, Cicero's Letters to Atticus (Cambridge, 1966), 5.391Google Scholar; Pietilä-Castrén, L., ‘The ancestry and career of Cn. Octavius, cos. 165 b.c. ’, Arctos 18 (1984), 75–92, at 92Google Scholar; and Manuwald (n. 1), 1060.

⁶ Cic. Off. 1.138. On the mansion of Octavius, see E. Papi, LTUR 2 (1995), 26 and 147. The elections for 165 b.c. were reportedly conducted cum ambitiosissime (Obsequens 112).

⁷ Cic. Off. 1.138. Pietilä-Castrén (n. 5), 86 wrongly claims that the house was bought by M. Aemilius Scaurus (cos. 115), but Cicero clearly indicates that the property was acquired by M. Aemilius Scaurus, the praetor of 56 b.c. and unsuccessful candidate for the consulship of 53 b.c., for he refers to the purchaser as the son of that great and illustrious man (summi et clarissimi uiri filius), that is, the princeps senatus (the father of M. Scaurus [cos. 115] was notoriously poor and obscure), and notes that he suffered not only a repulsa but also ignominy and calamity, which refers to the praetor's conviction and exile; see Bucher, G.S., ‘Appian BC 2.24 and the trial de ambitu of M. Aemilius Scaurus’, Historia 44 (1995), 396–421, esp. 400–1, 418–21Google Scholar; and Kelly, G.P., A History of Exile in the Roman Republic (Cambridge, 2006), 198 no. 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In addition, the house built by Cn. Octavius was apparently still in the family after the death of the princeps senatus, for the home of Cn. Octavius (cos. 87) and, after his death, that of his younger brother L. Octavius (cos. 75) was evidently proximate to the Via Sacra (see App. B Civ. 1.64; Sall. Hist. 2.45 Maurenbrecher = 2.42 McGushin; cf. Diod. Sic. 38.2.2).

⁸ On the history, design and location of the Porticus Octavia, see Rodríguez-Almeida, E., ‘Diversi problemi connessi con la lastra n. 37 della Forma Urbis Marmorea e con la topografia in circo e in campo’, RPAA 64 (1991), 20–3Google Scholar; Coarelli, F., Il Campo Marzio. Dalle origini alla fine della Repubblica (Rome, 1997), 515–28Google Scholar; Viscogliosi, A., ‘Porticus Octavia’, LTUR 4 (1999), 139–41Google Scholar; Petruccioli, G. in Haselberger, L. et al. (edd.), Mapping Augustan Rome (Portsmouth, 2002), 205 Google Scholar; Senseney, J.R., ‘Adrift toward empire’, JSAH 70 (2011), 421–41Google Scholar; and Albers, J., Campus Martius: Die urbane Entwicklung des Marsfeldes von der Republik bis zur mittleren Kaiserzeit (Wiesbaden, 2013), 79–80, 116, 261–2Google Scholar.

⁹ Festus 188 L: Octauiae porticus duae appellantur, quarum alteram theatro Marcelli propiorem, Octauia soror Augusti fecit; alteram theatro Pompei proximam Cn. Octauius Cn. filius, qui fuit aedilis curulis, praetor, consul, decemuirum sacris faciendis, triumphauitque de rege Perseo nauali triumpho: quam combustam reficiendam curauit Caesar Augustus. ‘There are two porticoes called Octavia, the one adjacent to the theatre of Marcellus was built by Octavia the sister of Augustus; the other close to the theatre of Pompey was built by Cn. Octavius, the son of Cnaeus, who was curule aedile, praetor, consul, decemuir sacris faciendis, and celebrated a naval triumph over King Perseus: when it was destroyed by fire, its restoration was carried out by Caesar Augustus.’ Augustus mentions his restoration of the Porticus Octavia in the Res Gestae (19.1: porticum ad circum Flaminium, quam sum appellari passus ex nomine eius qui priorem eodem in solo fecerat, Octaviam … feci). See also App. Ill. 28 and Cass. Dio 49.43.8 (who confuses the Porticus Octavia with the Porticus Octaviae). On Augustus’ decision to allow the structure to retain its original name, see also Suet. Aug. 31.5 and Cass. Dio 56.40.5.

¹⁰ Obsequens, 16: in circo Flaminio porticus inter aedem Iunonis Reginae et Fortunae tacta, et circa aedificia pleraque dissipata. von Domaszewski, A., Abhandlungen zur römischen Religion (Leipzig, 1909), 227 Google Scholar. So also Olinder, B., Porticus Octavia in Circo Flaminio: Topographical Studies in the Campus Region of Rome (Stockholm, 1974), 119 Google Scholar. But Olinder's thesis that the Porticus Octavia was replaced in the 140s by the porticus of Metellus Macedonicus was exploded by Gros, P., ‘Porticus Octavia’, RA (1977), 131–3Google Scholar; Zevi, F., ‘Porticus Octavia’, Gnomon 49 (1977), 196–201 Google Scholar; Wiseman, T.P., ‘Porticus Octavia’, JRS 66 (1976), 246–7Google Scholar; and Coarelli (n. 8).

¹¹ Obsequens indicates that the buildings around the porticus sustained the most damage and while dissipare is sometimes used of the concussive damage done by lightning to smaller objects (see Plin. HN 2.137; Granius Licinian. 35 p. 22 Flemisch; SHA Tacitus 15.1; Sen. QNat. 2.52.2, 6.2.3), it is difficult to see how major edifices could be said to be ‘scattered’ (dissipata) by lightning even if they caught fire. Obsequens usually uses dissipare of the damaging effects of strong winds (see 5, 46, 68) and he relates that the thunderstorm of 156 b.c. was accompanied by a violent storm that damaged buildings on the Capitol and tore the roof of the home of the pontifex maximus with such force that the debris, including the columns supporting the roof, was cast into the Tiber. It appears therefore that the porticus in question was struck by lightning while high winds damaged the surrounding buildings.

¹² During the Republic the censors, consuls, praetors and aediles were all tasked with oversight of repairs and maintenance to public buildings. For glimpses of the system in operation, see Coarelli, F., ‘Public building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla’, PBSR 45 (1977), 1–23 Google Scholar, at 3–7; Astin, A.E., ‘The role of the censors in Roman economic life’, Latomus 49 (1990), 20–36, at 21–3, 26Google Scholar; and Robinson, O.F., Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration (London, 1996), 48–50 Google Scholar.

¹³ See Marchetti-Longhi, G., ‘I tempii presso S. Nicola à Cesarini e la sistemazione della zona Argentina’, BCAR 46 (1918), 115–60, at 151–5Google Scholar; Boyd, M.J., ‘The porticoes of Metellus and Octavia and their two temples’, PBSR 21 (1953), 152–9, at 155Google Scholar; and Coarelli (n. 8), 273, 487–8. Boyd and Coarelli identify the structure as a porticus erected in the censorship of 179 b.c.

¹⁴ Coarelli (n. 8), 217 n. 6, 572–3.

¹⁵ App. B Civ. 2.147–8. See W. Drumann and P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms (Berlin, 1899²), 1.75; C. Hülsen, ‘Curia Pompei’ RE 4.1826; Weinstock, S., Divus Iulius (Oxford, 1971), 350, 355Google Scholar; Ramsey, J.T., Cicero Philippics I-II (Cambridge, 2003), 294 Google Scholar; Wiseman, T.P., ‘After the Ides of March’, in Remembering the Roman People (Oxford, 2009), 211–34, at 232CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and C. Pelling, Plutarch Caesar (Oxford, 2011), 492.

¹⁶ See now Sumi, G.S., ‘Topography and ideology: Caesar's monument and the aedes divi Iulii in Augustan Rome’, CQ 61 (2011), 205–29, esp. 208–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ See Suet. Iul. 84–5; Plut. Brut. 20.4–6, Caes. 68.1, Ant. 14.4, Cic. 42.4; Cass. Dio 44.50–1; Livy, Per. 116; and Jer. Chron. p. 157 Helm.

¹⁸ Suet. Iul. 84.3; Cass. Dio 44.50.2.

¹⁹ Phil. 2.91, Att. 14.10.1. Cicero mentions the burning of the house of L. Bellienus and the failed attempts on the homes of the tyrannicides, and Appian himself subsequently refers to the attacks on the homes of the conspirators, but says nothing of the Curia (B Civ. 3.2, 3.15, 3.35, 4.57). Cass. Dio has Cicero claim that as a result of Antony's agitation almost the whole city went up in flames (45.23.4), but the rebuttal which Dio puts into the mouth of Q. Fufius Calenus (esp. 46.3.2), and Dio's own characterization of Cicero (46.29.1), are intended to show that Cicero's testimony regarding Antony was malicious and unreliable.

²⁰ Plut. Brut. 20.5 noted the parallels between the two events.

²¹ Suet. Iul. 88; Cass. Dio 47.19.1. Octavian also had the artworks that had adorned the Curia, namely the statue of Pompey on the spot where Caesar fell and a painting by Polygnotus of Thasos, transferred to the theatre and porticus of Pompey (Suet. Aug. 31.9; Plin. HN 35.59).

²² Shipley, F.W., ‘Chronology of the building operations in Rome from the death of Caesar to the death of Augustus’, MAAR 9 (1931), 7–60, at 33Google Scholar suggested that the Porticus Octavia may have been damaged by the fire of 31 b.c., but, as Shipley himself acknowledged, the evidence of Appian, Ill. 28 and of Cass. Dio 49.43.8 indicates that the restoration undertaken by Octavian was complete in 33 b.c. Furthermore, the damage done by the fire of 31 b.c. was concentrated further to the south in the Forum Holitorium, around the Circus Maximus, and on the Aventine (see Cass. Dio, 50.10.3–6; cf. Tac. Ann. 2.49).

²³ The blazes were discussed long ago by Canter, H.V., ‘Conflagrations in ancient Rome’, CJ 27 (1932), 270–88Google Scholar. Canter, however, omits the fire of 50 b.c. Cf. van Ooteghem, J., ‘Les incendies à Rome’, LEC 28 (1960), 305–12, at 306Google Scholar.

²⁴ Livy, Per. 50; Obsequens 19.

²⁵ Obsequens 39; Val. Max. 1.8.11; cf. Ov. Fast. 4.347–8.

²⁶ Plut. Sull. 27.6; Cic. Cat. 3.9; Sall. Cat. 47.2; Tac. Hist. 3.72; App. B Civ. 1.83, 1.86; Obsequens 57.

²⁷ Cic. Mil. 90, Phil. 13.27; Asc. 33 C; Dio 40.49.2–3; Plin. HN 34.21.

²⁸ Dio 41.14.3. The temple of Quirinus sustained some damage.

²⁹ Orosius 6.14.4–5: hanc nunc amplissimam dilatationem uastissima ruina consequitur. apud Parthos enim consul Romanus occiditur exercitusque deletur, atrocissimum illud Pompei atque Caesaris bellum ciuile conseritur et inter haec Roma ipsa repentino correpta incendio concrematur. anno siquidem ab urbe condita DCC incertum unde concretus plurimam urbis partem ignis inuasit, neque umquam antea tanto incendio correptam ac uastatam ciuitatem ferunt. nam quattuordecim uicos cum uico Iugario consumptos fuisse memoriae proditum est. ‘Great devastation now followed this tremendous expansion. In Parthia a Roman consul was killed and his army slaughtered, and the most ferocious civil war was waged by Pompey and Caesar, and in the interval between these events Rome itself was suddenly gripped and consumed by fire. In the 700th year after the foundation of the City, a fire of unknown origin swept through much of the City, and it is said that Rome had never before been seized and laid waste by so great a conflagration, for fourteen neighbourhoods together with the vicus Iugarius were consumed.’ 7.2.10–11: Roma ipsa etiam, quamuis ad aduentum Domini Iesu Christi perfecto proueheretur imperio, tamen paululum et ipsa in occursu numeri [i.e. 700] huius offendit. nam septingentesimo conditionis suae anno quattuordecim uicos eius incertum unde consurgens flamma consumpsit, nec umquam, ut ait Liuius, maiore incendio uastata est; adeo, ut post aliquot annos Caesar Augustus ad reparationem eorum, quae tunc exusta erant, magnam uim pecuniae ex aerario publico largitus sit. ‘Although Rome endured with her empire intact down to the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, she none the less suffered somewhat when she encountered this number. For in her 700th year fourteen city blocks were consumed by a raging fire of unknown origin, and never, according to Livy, was she ravaged by a greater fire, so that some years later Caesar Augustus lavished vast sums from the public treasury on repairing what had been destroyed.’ See also Obsequens 65: incendium quo maxima pars urbis deleta est prodigii loco habitum. The fire is securely dated to 50 b.c. by Obsequens who gives the consular date. Orosius clearly intended the same date since he places the fire between the battle of Carrhae (June 53 b.c.) and the outbreak of civil war (January 49 b.c.), and like Obsequens treats the fire as a portent of the impending conflict. Hence Orosius either took over the date a.u.c. 700 = 50 b.c. from Livy, who uses this reckoning as well as other chronological schemes (see Sanders, H.A., ‘The chronology of Livy’, CJ 1 [1905], 155–6Google Scholar and CJ 2 [1906], 82–3, and A. Drummond, CAH ² 7.2 [1989], 625), or ‘adjusted’ the date to agree with his obsession with the figure 700 (see 7.2.11).

³⁰ See Virgili, P., LTUR 5 (2000), 169–70Google Scholar.

³¹ Orosius refers to repairs to an unspecified number of buildings, and the structures in the vicinity of the Porticus Octavia that were restored in the 30s and early 20s were conceivably affected by the fire of 50 b.c., including the Porticus Metelli (which was restored and renamed the Porticus Octaviae), and the temple of Hercules Musarum which was refurbished by L. Marcius Philippus (cos. suff. 38) and embellished with the Porticus Philippi. The fire was apparently not responsible for the damage to the theatre of Pompey which Octavian repaired at an unspecified date (Res Gestae 20.1), because the Curia, the theatre and the porticus of Magnus were all intact and in use in 44 b.c. (on the Curia, see above; on the theatre and the porticus, see App. B Civ. 2.16, 118; Cic. Fat. 2, 8; and Nic. Dam. Vita Caes. 92, 98). The only damage to the theatre that is mentioned in the relevant period occurred during a storm in 32 b.c. (Cass. Dio 50.8.3)—though the necessary repairs seem unlikely to have involved an impensa grandis. Strabo 5.3.8 was greatly impressed by the extensive redevelopment of the Campus Martius sponsored largely by Octavian / Augustus and his associates.

³² Plin. HN 3.66. The number of vici in existence during the Republic is unknown. Lott, J.B., The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome (Cambridge, 2004), 15 Google Scholar maintains that the Augustan total was probably somewhere in the vicinity of Pliny's figure. In the regionaria of the fourth century a.d., the Notitia and Curiosum, the number of vici had increased to 424, and the Campus Martius alone (Augustan regiones VII and IX) contained fifteen and thirty-five vici respectively; see Homo, L., Rome impériale et l'urbanisme dans l'Antiquité (Paris, 1971 ²) 109–12Google Scholar.

³³ RE s.v. ‘Octavius’ (33). See T.R.S. Broughton, MRR 2.268, 2.282, 2.291, 2.302.

³⁴ Plut. Cat. Min. 65.2.

³⁵ Plut. Ant. 65.1; MRR 2.422.

³⁶ Drumann and Groebe (n. 15), 4.242. So also Syme, R., The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939), 269, 296Google Scholar and more recently Ferriès, M.-C., Les partisans d'Antoine (Paris, 2007), 283, 448–9 no. 106Google Scholar. Drumann did not speculate on the fate of Octavius in the period between 46 and 31 b.c. It seems most likely that he made his way to Spain to join forces with the sons of Pompeius Magnus. Ferriès posits that he served with Sex. Pompeius before transferring his allegiance to Antony.

³⁷ F. Münzer, RE 17.1825 M. Octavius (33) and (34) (followed by K. Welch, Magnus Pius [Swansea, 2012], 116 n. 14).

³⁸ M. Insteius is less well known than Gellius and Sosius, but he was nevertheless a seasoned campaigner, for he had been acclaimed imperator back in 39 b.c.; see Nigdelis, P.M., ‘M. Insteius L. f. αὐτοκράτωρ et la province de Macédoine au début du second triumvirat’, BCH 118 (1994), 216–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the anomalous Κοίλιος of Plutarch, Ant. 65.1, see F. Münzer, RE 7.1005; and Pelling, C.B.R., Plutarch Life of Antony (Cambridge, 1988), 281 Google Scholar.

³⁹ He was taken to Pompey by C. Scribonius Libo (see the Commenta Bernensia on Lucan, 4.433 p. 135 Usener; and Orosius 6.15.9). When C. Antonius was captured for a second time in 43 b.c. he was put to death by M. Brutus (see MRR 2.432).

⁴⁰ Cic. Att. 13.49.1 (22 August 45 b.c.): pueros Octauios Cn. filios. Alexander, M.C., Trials in the Late Roman Republic (Toronto, 1990), 158 no. 324Google Scholar. Phamea was a wealthy Sardinian (Att. 9.9.4, 13.6, Fam. 9.16.8), and the case presumably had something to do with the estate of the deceased.

⁴¹ See RE 17.1804, 1818 ‘Octavius’ (6) and (23).

⁴² Shackleton Bailey (n. 5), 391. Trebatius’ friend (RE ‘Octavius’ [23]) was one of the candidates considered by Münzer.

⁴³ Fam. 7.9.3, 16.2.

⁴⁴ Att. 13.49.1: non libenter. As events turned out, Cicero was unable to represent Phamea because the trial conflicted with his defence of P. Sestius (Fam. 7.24).

⁴⁵ Fin. 2.93. De finibus was completed in July 45, the month before Cicero wrote Att. 13.49 (see Att. 12.23.2).

⁴⁶ In the late Republic boys usually donned the toga uirilis by their sixteenth birthday: see Marquardt, J., Das Privatleben der Römer (Leipzig, 1886 ²), 128–30Google Scholar and F. Dolansky, ‘Ritual, gender, and status in the Roman family’ (Diss., University of Chicago, 2006), 47–8, 285–6. Thus M. Cicero junior, who was born in July 65, took the toga uirilis on 1 or 2 April 49 (Att. 9.19.1), a few months short of his sixteenth birthday (not at 16 as per Marquardt, or at 17 as per Dolansky).

⁴⁷ The age of the boys makes it much less likely that they were the sons of Cn. Octavius (cos. 76) as suggested by Meloni, P., ‘Note su Tigellio’, Studi Sardi 7 (1947), 115–51, at 122Google Scholar and Rowland, R.J., ‘Cicero and the Greek world’, TAPA 103 (1972), 451–61, at 458 n. 18Google Scholar. Cn. Octavius (cos. 76), who suffered terribly from gout, was perhaps already dead in 68 b.c. The boys clearly cannot have been the children of Cn. Octavius (cos. 87) who was killed in office.

⁴⁸ See RE s.v. ‘Crassus’ (5) and MRR 2.232.

⁴⁹ P. Crassus (cos. 97), the father of M. Crassus, had fought alongside Cn. Octavius (cos. 87) in the Civil War and paid with his life for opposing Marius and Cinna. One of his sons was also killed by the victors, and Crassus himself was forced into exile.

⁵⁰ The legate was one of Crassus’ senior officers and was obliged to assume command, along with Crassus’ quaestor C. Cassius, after the battle when Crassus sunk into despair (Plut. Crass. 27.5). It may even be that Octavius was one of the praetorii who reportedly fell at Carrhae (Oros. 6.13.3).

⁵¹ M. Grant postulated that the Τ. Ὀκτ(αουίος ?) named on a coin of Alabanda was related to the Antonian admiral, but this is most improbable; see T.R.S. Broughton, MRR 3.151; L. Petersen, PIR ² O 5; Stumpf, G.R., Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien 122 v. Chr.-163 n. Chr. (Saarbrücken, 1991), 83 Google Scholar; and Ferriès (n. 36), 517 no. 169. On the identity of the C. Octavius who falsely claimed to have participated in the assassination of Caesar, see Hinard, F., Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome, 1985), 499 no. 94Google Scholar.

⁵² App. B Civ. 1.71.

⁵³ Similarly, the orator M. Antonius (cos. 99), whose head was soon to follow, had a strong connection with the site (see Cic. De or. 3.10).