ters; and Capua was five days' journey from Rome e. Formiæ and Minturnæ were cities of Campania, on the road to Capua also; the former three days' journey at least from Rome, the latter four: so that if he left Rome xiii Kal. Februarias, December 1, he could not have been at Formiæ before x Kal. Februarias December 4, nor at Minturnæ before ix Kal. Februarias December 5. He was actually at Formiæ x Kal. Februarias and at Minturnæ viii Kal. Februariasg December 6. When he himself departed from Rome Terentia and Tullia were both left there h; and they remained at Rome until the end of January Roman at leasti. It is evident therefore that in the letter to Terentia viii Kalendas Quinctiles must be in error for viii Kalendas Februarias The coming over of Labienus is mentioned in this very letter; and yet the date of that event itself was not long before ix Kal. Februarias k, December 5*,

The correspondence of Cicero consequently after his departure from Rome would begin properly with his arrival at Formiæ, on the x Kal. Februarias, December 4. But we have no occasion for our particular purpose at present to trace it seriatim either from this or from any other day. We shall pass to the consideration of another date which bears directly on our proper object; that of the evacuation of Brundisium, which left Julius Cæsar in possession of all Italy.

It is agreed that the Roman date of this event was the Liberalia, March 17 Roman. It is agreed too that, in 60 days' time from the first overt act of aggression on his part, (the occupation of Ariminum,) Cæsar was already in posses

* Labienus joined Pompey and the consuls at Theanum or Teanum in Apulia (Ad Attic. vii. 13) on the ix Kal. (Febr.). And Cicero was aware of his having left Cæsar viii Kal. when he wrote to Terentia. But Teanum was 80 miles or more distant from Capua: and still further from Minturnæ. He must therefore have come over some days before the ix Kal. (Febr.) if Cicero was already aware of the fact on the viii Kal. at Minturnæ. Cf. Ad Attic. viii. 11 (the second letter of Cicero to Pompey there given) to see that it required 7 days to bring despatches from Pompey at Canusium to Cicero at Capua. Canusium was about 30 miles further from Capua than Teanum.

e Cf. Procopius, De Bello Gothico, i. 14. p. 74. l. 10. Horace, Serm. i. 5. 146 who reaches Capua on the sixth day.

:

f Ad Attic. vii. 12.

Ibid. vii. 13. Cf. 14.

b Ibid. 12: 13: 14: 16: 17. Ad Fam. xvi. 12.

i Ad Attic. vii. 17: 18: 20: 22. Ad Fam. xvi. 12. * Ad Att. vii. 13. Cf.14.

sion of Italy. Reckon on then 60 days from November 26 B. C. 50 and you come to January 25 B. C. 49: and turn to January 25 B. C. 49, in our calendar of U. C. 705, and you find it falling on March 17 Roman that year, the xvi Kal. Apriles, the stated date of the Liberalia: and if so, the date of the evacuation of Brundisium also. Nor can there be any doubt that by Cæsar's being left master of Italy this evacuation of Brundisium is meant. The contest up to the date of that event had been waged in Italy; but after this evacuation it was never renewed on Italian ground. Spain, Epirus, Thessaly, Africa, each in its turn, became the scene of a fresh struggle; but Italy in particular never again, during this first civil war, after Pompey had once left Brundisium. The last of the sixty days then, up to which Cæsar was not yet the undisputed master of all Italy and after which he was, must have been this day of the evacuation of Brundisium; and if that was really the Liberalia March 17 Roman, U. C. 705, and that of the occupation of Ariminum was the Ides of January the same year previously, nothing can be more certain than that there were 60 days from the latter of these terms to the former in the Roman calendar of the time being, as there were from November 26 to January 25 in the Julian for the time being also. Let us then proceed to ascertain if possible how far this date of the evacuation, (the Liberalia March 17 Roman this year,) can be made out from the contemporary testimony of Cicero or of Cæsar.

Now there is a letter to Atticus m dated v Kalendas (Martias) Jan. 5 B.C. 49, in which Cicero thought it was probable that Pompey had already got to Brundisium from Luceria by that day; and there is another to Pompey himself", in answer to one received on the iii Kal. (Martias) January 7, in which it is taken for granted that he must by that time have been in Brundisium. There is also a quotation extant from a letter of Atticus' to Cicero himself, dated Kalendis Martiis, Jan. 9; when Pompey it is said was Quintum jam diem Brundisii. Consequently he must have arrived there on the v Kalendas Martias Feb. 24 Roman, January 5; as Cicero conjectured that he would. In like manner in a letter

1 Plutarch, Cæsar, xxxv: lvi. Pompeius, lxii: lxiii.

m viii. 9.
o ix. 10.

n viii. 11.

to Atticus P, dated vii Idus Martias Jan. 17, he reckoned that Cæsar also must have got to Brundisium by that day or the day before it; and that this calculation also was correct appears from a letter of Cæsar himself to Oppius 4: A. d. vii Idus Martii Brundisium veni. ad murum castra posui. Pompeius est in oppido.

r

The length of the siege of Brundisium is stated by Cæsar at nine days; and nine days are the interval from vii Idus Martias to xvi Kalendas Apriles, January 17 to January 25, each reckoned inclusively: and that the last day must be reckoned in these nine days as well as the first appears from the fact that the city was evacuated on the evening of January 25; or, as Cæsar himself describes the time and the circumstances of its evacuation, silentio and sub noctems.

The duration of the siege then was only nine days: yet in the course of that time various reports were circulated affirming the departure of Pompey at particular points of the intervening period; all of which of course were false. One of these is represented by Cicero" as follows: Scripta jam epistola Capua litteræ sunt allatæ hoc exemplo. Pompeius mare transiit cum omnibus militibus quos secum habuit. hic numerus est hominum millia xx. et consules duo et tribuni plebis et senatores qui fuerunt cum eo, omnes cum uxoribus et liberis. conscendisse dicitur a. d. iv Nonas Martii (Jan. 12). ex ea die fuere Septemtriones venti. naves quibus usus non est omnes aut præcidisse aut incendisse dicunt. de hac re litteræ L. Metello tribuno plebis Capuam allatæ sunt ab Clodia socru, quæ ipsa transiit. This report was contradicted by him in a letter written on the Liberalia itself w, (March 17 Jan. 25) and yet it was so circumstantially enunciated that, if we are not mistaken, it appears to have imposed on Lucan, and made him adopt it in his Pharsalia as the actual date of the departure.

X

Cicero himself on a subsequent occasion conjectured that Pompey would probably be leaving on the day before the Quinquatrus; that is, March 18 Roman, January 26: Fuit

p ix. 3.

q ix. 13.

De Bello Civili, i. 27: cf. 25-29.

Ibid. 27, 28.

t Cf. Ad Attic. viii. 13. 16: ix. 1, 2, 3: 5, 6, 7. u Ibid. ix. 6.

w Ibid. 9: cf. 11, 12, 13, 14.

Ibid. 13: cf. 11.

enim pridie Quinquatrus egregia tempestas, qua illum usum puto and in this conjecture he can scarcely be said to have been mistaken, since if Pompey actually set out in the evening of March 17 Roman, he must have been making the passage on the morning of March 18.

The next report made him set out on the Ides of March. Scripta epistola litteræ mihi ante lucem a Lepta Capua redditæ sunt. Idib. Mart. Pompeium a Brundisio conscendisse et Cæsarem a. d. vii. Kal. Apriles Capuæ forey. But the next epistle ascertains the true date of his departure, from a letter of Matius and Trebatius enclosed in itz: Cum Capua exissemus in itinere audiimus Pompeium Brundisio a. d. xvi Kalendas Apriles cum omnibus copiis quas habuit profectum esse: Cæsarem postero die (an argument of the departure late the preceding day) in oppidum introiisse: concionatum esse: inde Romam contendisse. We may dismiss this point then as sufficiently cleared up.

iii. On the length of the month of Februarius, U. C. 705, deducible from the above conclusions.

As a corollary of the above conclusions it is to be inferred that the interval between the date of the occupation of Ariminum, the Ides of January U. C. 705, and that of the evacuation of Italy, the Liberalia, xvi Kal. Apriles, the same year, being sixty days and no more, the month of February Roman the same year must have had only 27 days. The statement of this interval, both in the Roman calendar U. C. 705, and in the Julian, B. C. 50-49, stands as follows.

And this is entirely consistent with the arrangements of our Irregular Roman Calendar, Period vii. Cycle 16, accord

y Ad Attic. ix. 14.

Ibid. 15. Cf. Dio, xli. 12.

ing to which Februarius has only 27 days, and the whole year has only 354 days. On this principle there was no xvi Kalendas Martias in the Roman calendar, U. C. 705. Nor is there any evidence that there was. On the contrary, though so many dates in the months of January and February Roman this year are still to be found in Cicero's epistles, between the xiii Kal. Febr. and the Kal. Martias, (proving incontestably that there could have been no intercalation this year,) the xvi Kalendas Martias occurs no where in them. The xv Kalendas occurs a, and the xiv Kalendas occurs; and dates in abundance between this last and the Kalends of March occurb: but the xvi Kalendas Martias does not occur.

A critical intimation of this fact, (i. e. of the absence of this particular term from the calendar in the present year,) appears also, if we are not mistaken, in the following passage of the letters to Atticus: Etsi quum tu has litteras legeres putabam fore ut scirem jam quid Brundisii actum esset: nam Canusio viiii Kalendas profectus erat Cneius. . hæc autem scribebam pridie Nonas, xiv die postquam ille Canusio moverat &c.

On this principle the 6th of March Roman (January 14) was the fourteenth day from the ix Kal. Februarias inclusive. Reckon this latter to have been February 20 Roman, Jan. 1 Julian, and that would be actually the case: but not so if ix Kal. Febr. was Feb. 21 Roman. And though there is a various reading of viii Kalendas instead of viiii Kalendas, no one will consider that extraordinary who reflects how easily viii and viiii might be confounded one with the other. The other reading of Pridie Nonas Martias and the xivth day since the departure from Canusium must fix this reading to the viiii Kal. (Martias), and the day intended thereby to the 20th of the Roman February, not the 21st. And this reading of viiii (ix) Kalendas may be further confirmed as follows.

Pompey was at Canusium on the x Kalendas Martias ; on which day he wrote thence to Cicero. He had not therefore at that time set out to Brundisium, though he was preparing to do so; and so Cicero understood him to imply. The ac

a Ad Attic. viii. 11, 12.
d Ibid. viii. 11.

b Ibid. 2. 5, 6. 9. 11, 12.

e Ibid. ix. I.