This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
 In the meantime many persons brought lawsuits against Octavius for the recovery of landed property, some making one claim and some another, differing in other respects, but for the most part having this in common, that it had been confiscated from persons who had been banished or put to death by the proscription. These suits were brought before Antonius himself or the other consul, Dolabella. If any were brought before other magistrates, Octavius was worsted through Antony's influence, although he showed by the public records that the purchases had been made by his father,1 and that the last decree of the Senate had confirmed all of Cæsar's acts. Great wrongs were done him in these judgments, and the losses in consequence thereof were going on without end, until Pedius and Pinarius, who had a certain portion of the inheritance under Cæsar's will, complained to Antony, both for themselves and for Octavius, that they were suffering injustice in violation of the Senate's decree. They thought that he ought to annul only the things done in derogation of Cæsar, and to ratify all that had been done by him. Antony acknowledged that his course was perhaps somewhat contrary to the agreements voted. The decrees also, he said, had been recorded in a sense different from the understanding at the time. While hastily passing a mere decree of amnesty, it had been registered that whatever had been previously determined on should stand unrepealed, not for its own sake, not because it was satisfactory in all respects, but rather to promote good order and to quiet the people, who had been thrown into tumult by these events. It would be more just, he added, to observe the spirit than the letter of the decree, and not to make an unseemly opposition to so many men who had lost their own and their ancestors' property in the civil convulsions, and to do this in favor of a young man who had received an amount of other people's wealth disproportionate to a private station and beyond his hopes, and who was not making good use of his fortune, but employing it in the rashest adventures. He would take care of them (Pedius and Pinarius) after their portion should have been separated from that of Octavius. This was the answer made by Antony to Pedius and Pinarius. So they took their portion immediately, in order not to lose their own share by the lawsuits, and they did this not so much on their own account as on that of Octavius, for they were going to bestow the whole of it upon him soon afterward.
1 τά τε ὠνήματα τῷ πατρὶ ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου γενόμενα ἐπιδεικνύς. Schweighäuser, being of the opinion that the words ἐκ τοῦ δημοσίου meant " at the public expense," conceived that the word οὐκ had been accidentally omitted, i.e., Octavius showed that the purchases had been made by his father not with public money. Mendelssohn, with better reason, thinks that they mean " by the public scribe." He thinks also that τὰ ὠνήματα may possibly signify title deeds, emptionis instrumenta.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.