^{page 135 note 2} Horace (Oxford, 1957), 65–6;Google Scholar cf. Reitzenstein, , ‘Horaz und die hellenistische Lyrik’, NJb xxi (1908), 85Google Scholar; and Stroux, J., ‘Valerius Flaccus und Horaz’, Phil, xc (1935), 324.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 3} See Stroux, , loc. cit. 226–7;Google Scholar and Heinze (ad loc.) on dirts.

^{page 135 note 4} Frag. 56(D). Ps.-Heraclitus comments as follows: (alleg. Hom. 5, p. 6 ed. Bonn.). Whether Horace's description of the storm is conventional or real, his facts seem to be accurate: ‘Vorias (der alte Boreas) … ist der kühle, oft stürmische Nordwind (NW, N, NO), der im Sommer Trockenheit, in der Regenzeit oft kalten Regen und Schnee bringt.’ (Philippson, A., Das Mittelmeergebiet [Leipzig, 1907], 99Google Scholar). Wilkinson, L. P. (Horace and his Lyric Poetry [Camb., 1945], 128, n. 2)Google Scholar refers to the of Alcaeus, Frag. B6 (L–P), in terms of a political storm.

^{page 135 note 5} Loc. cit., 324–5.

^{page 136 note 1} The expression occasionem de die (4) seems unparalleled. The closest Horace comes to repeating it is partem solido de die (Carm. 1. 1. 20), where de die is definitely partitive and generalizing. But the context here seems to imply source rather than partition, and specific time (the present), i.e. ‘Let us seize the occasion the day presents’. The occasion could be represented by dies in a number of senses: sacer, bonus, festus, meus (i.e. birthday). Dies may also take the sense of weather: tranquillus, aprica, pestilens. Is the stormy weather itself offering the excuse for a party? For (dies) meus= fatalis, see Tac. Dial. 13.

^{page 136 note 2} Naylor interprets meo: ‘my own, my loved, because I was born in his consulship’. N. compares 1. 26. 8 and 1. 13. 5. where meum provides the contrast to Telephi (2). The tu … meo contrast seems plain, although N. omits to mention it.

^{page 136 note 3} See Stroux, , loc. cit. 326.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 4} The technique is reminiscent of Pindar; and the theme of Catullus, but the details may be Horace's own invention. See Highbarger, E. L., ‘The Pindaric Style of Horace,’ TAPA, lxvi (1935), 227–8Google Scholar on Pyth. 3 and Nem. 3. For the prophecy of Achilles' exploits, cf. Catull. 64. 338–81.

^{page 137 note 1} Pind. Pyth. 4. 104–7.

^{page 137 note 2} Chronological and emotional associations of this poem with Philippi have long been suspected. See Castorina, E., La Poesia d'Orazio (Roma, 1965), 109 f.Google Scholar for discussion and bibliography.

The date of Brutus' death in the second battle of Philippi has been established from the fragments of the Calendar of Praeneste (see L'ann. ép. [1922], 96) by Hülsen, C. (‘Zum Kalender der Arvalbrüder: Das Datum der Schlacht bei Philippi’, Strena Buliciana [Zagreb/Split, 1924], 193–7)Google Scholar as 23 October. The insoluble contradiction between this evidence and that of Suetonius (Tib. 5) is discussed by Wissowa, G. in Hermes lviii (1923), 372 ff.Google Scholar (Suet, says that the fasti actaque publica record Tiberius as having been born on 16 November per bellum Philippense.) Holmes, T. Rice (The Architect of the Roman Empire [Oxford, 1928], p. 85)Google Scholar dates Brutus' death on 16 November on the evidence of Suetonius, although he cites The Tear's Work in Classical Studies for 1922 and 1923–1924Google Scholar, which allude only to ‘Oct. 23 as the date of Philippi’. Syme, R., (The Roman Revolution [Oxford, 1939], p. 205)Google Scholar speaks of the first battle as belonging to 23 October although he cites Hülsen. E. Fraenkel (pp. 11, 53) places the second battle in mid November. Charlesworth, M. P. (CAM. x [1934], 24)Google Scholar is convinced of the dating of the second battle on 23 October.

The date of Philippi I does not affect the argument here since it is definitely autumn; and the weather would be appropriate to the details that Plutarch (Brut. 47. 1) gives. However, because of the uncertainty of the text and interpretation of per bellum Philippense (Suet. Tib. 5), as well as the range of possible dates Suetonius does give for Tiberius' birth, I favor Hiilsen's date. Thus the first battle (and hence Cassius' birthday [Plut. Brut. 39. 3]) would fall twenty days earlier (ibid. 47), on approximately 3 October 42 B.C.

There seems to be no reason to doubt that Plutarch's major source for the events before, during, and after Philippi was Messalla Corvinus. See Wickmann, C., De Plutarchi in litis Bruti et Antonii fontibus (Bonn, 1874);Google ScholarPeter, H., Die Quellen Plutarchs in den Biographieen der Römer (Bonn, 1865);Google ScholarHeeren, A., De fontibus et auctoritate vitarum parallelarum Plutarchi (Göttingen, 1820).Google Scholar Plutarch cites Messalla by name seven times in all.

^{page 138 note 1} Sat. 1. 6. 48.

^{page 140 note 1} Interesting too is this tradition (Sen. Ep. 83. 12): Cassius tola vita aquam bibit.

^{page 140 note 2} (App. 4. 108).

^{page 140 note 3} For the use of both limosus and lubricus to refer to a marshy battlefield, see Tac. Ann. 1. 65: lubrico pallidum … limosa humo.

^{page 140 note 4} Appian (4. 105–6) tells us that the camps of Brutus and Cassius were located on adjoining hills, eight stades apart. The space between was fortified by a rampart with a central gate, so that the two camps were essentially one:

^{page 141 note 1} Epod. 1,9; Carm. 1. 37. See Fraenkel on Epod. 9 for the present state of that controversy (op. cit. 71 ff.).

^{page 141 note 2} Cf. Carm. 2. 7. 10, and Arch. Frag. 6(D). Unhappy memories of the island of Thasos, where the Republican leaders fled after the second battle (App. 4. 136; 5. 2) and where the body of Cassius was taken (Plut. Brut. 44), may provide another common bond between the two poets. See Arch. Frags. 18, 19, 54(D).