[67] L. Philippus, as late as the middle of the ensuing June, was
still not at all sanguine of Octavius’ prospects, but thought
that nothing ought to be entrusted to him, after having taken
due regard for his age, his name, his inheritance, and his
training (Cic., Att., 15, 12, 2). With respect to the advice of
Philippus against the assumption by Octavius of the name Caesar,
see Cicero’s comment, on April 22 (Att. 14, 12, 2): ‘Octavius,
quem quidem sui Caesarem salutabant, Philippus non, itaque ne nos
quidem.’ See also Suet., Aug. 8; App. 3, 11; Vell. 2, 60, 1.
[68] ‘The state’ at this stage of events was, of course, by no
means unreservedly ‘on his side’, as Nicolaus says. In point of
fact, as we learn from Cicero’s letters, very few men at Rome
concerned themselves at this time about Octavian because of his
youth, Nicolaus is valuable here because he draws upon Octavian’s
memoirs and reveals how early Octavian matured his plans to
become Caesar’s successor in power as well as property. The
attitude of the consul Antony is well known (see Suet., Aug., 10;
Plut., Ant. 16). Octavian felt that the influence of Cicero was
worth cultivating, and hence while staying with his step-father
at the villa adjacent to that of Cicero at Puteoli, during the
latter part of April, made the most of every opportunity to
ingratiate himself with Cicero: ‘nobiscum hic perhonorifice et
peramice Octavius;’ ‘Octavius ... mihi totus deditus.’ (Cic.,
Att., 14, 11, 2; 14, 12, 2). Before the middle of May, the
tribune L. Antonius presented Octavius to the people as Caesar’s
heir (Cic., Att., 14, 20, 5; 14, 21, 4; 15, 2, 3).
[69] See App. 3, 10; 13; 14; Suet., Aug., 8; Vell. 2, 60, 1.
[70] ‘The name’ assumed by Octavius was not C. Julius Caesar
Octavianus as one would expect but C. Julius C. f. Caesar (App.
3, 11; Dio 45, 3). Only his immediate following, however, called
him Caesar; Cicero at this time called him Octavianus (Cic., Att.
14, 12, 2; 15, 12, 2; Fam. 16, 24, 2). In the decrees of the
senate reported in Cicero’s Philippics during the next year he
is referred to as C. Caesar C.f. pontifex (Cic., Phil., 5, 17);
this was after he had had his adoption legally ratified by a ‘lex
curiata’ (App. 3, 94). He had been striving toward this end for
some time, but had continually been prevented in his attempts by
Antony, who had, of course, always acted under the cover of a
subordinate official (Dio 45, 5, 3; 46, 47, 4).
[71] For the ‘money and means’ to which Octavian had access see
App. 3, 11; Dio 45, 3, who refer rather briefly to the matter.
[72] By ‘public property’ is meant the provincial tribute which
apparently went into the Aerarium Saturni. Caesar treated
military funds that accrued from booty as ‘his own’, and Octavian
apparently appropriated a part of this.
[73] Octavian proceeded into Campania, where many of Caesar’s
veterans had settled between 59 and 49 B.C. (M. Cary, Jour.
Phil. 70, p. 174 ff.), in order to discover what their probable
disposition toward himself would be (App. 3, 12). This was as
early as April, 44 B.C., for on the 18th, Cicero, at Cumae, met
one who had on the same day encountered Octavian at Naples (Cic.,
Att., 14, 10, 3). As Nicolaus remarks below, the opportunity for
levying an army did not seem to be at hand; nevertheless Octavian
felt that preliminary investigations along these lines would not
be out of place.
[74] A slight lacuna in the text exists at this point; the
context is not seriously affected, however. The rendering of
Müller has been reproduced here; Piccolos and Dindorf attempt no
restoration.
[75] See the latter part of note 70, above.
[76] Octavian approached Rome before April 10. His advent
excited the interest of Cicero, who inquired of Atticus how
great a following he was gathering and what new moves he was
contemplating (Cic., Att. 14, 5, 3). The reply of Atticus may
have been of a disparaging nature toward Octavian; at any rate,
Cicero again wrote on April 12, disdainfully dismissing Octavian
from his thoughts ‘nam de Octavio, susque deque.’ Even this
early, however, there were rumors in Rome that the legions in
Macedonia were returning at Octavian’s call: ‘Odiosa illa enim
fuerant, legiones venire!’ (Cic., Att., 14, 6, 1). See also App.
3, 11; Dio 45, 3. On April 20, Cicero saw Octavian at Puteoli,
for Octavian had, after his canvass of Campania, proceeded to
his step-father’s villa at Puteoli, adjoining the property of
Cicero (Cic., Att., 14, 11, 2). Shortly afterward, Octavian again
went to Rome, stopping on the way at Tarracina (App. 3, 12;
Gardthausen, Augustus, p. 53).
19. [77] According to Plutarch, Brut. 10, the conspiracy was well
under way before March 1, 44 B.C.
[78] Suetonius, Caes. 80, gives the number of conspirators as
60; Eutropius, Brev. 6, 25, speaks of ‘60 or more.’ Of the total
number, some 20 can be definitely identified by name; seven
additional names have been erroneously included among the number
by various authors. The 20 fall into three divisions: Caesarians,
6; Pompeians, 10; and those of uncertain partisanship, 4 (see
Klotz, P. W. Real-Encycl. 10, p. 255).
[79] Nicolaus’ contradiction is self-evident. Just after saying
that D. Brutus was a particular friend of Caesar, he includes him
with Cassius and M. Brutus as a former member of the Pompeian
faction. D. Brutus had, in fact, been associated with Caesar at
least since 56 B.C.: ‘D. Brutum adulescentem classi Gallicisque
navibus ... [Caesar] praeficit’ (Caes., B. G., 3, 11, 5). Again,
in 52 B.C. Caesar placed him in charge of some of his land forces
during his engagement with Vercingetorix: ‘Brutum adulescentem
his copiis praeficit;’ ‘mittit primum Brutum adulescentem cum
cohortibus’ (Caes., B. G., 7, 9, 1; 7, 87, 1; B. C., 1; 36, 56,
58; 2, 3-7). When Caesar’s will was read, it was found that D.
Brutus had been conditionally adopted by Caesar, subject to the
death of Octavian (App. 2, 143).
Cassius was in command of Pompey’s sea-force in the Hellespont
at the time of the civil war. He there surrendered to Caesar,
though his capitulation seems not to have been justified by the
circumstances (App. 2, 88; Dio 42, 6; Suet., Caes., 63). Caesar
subsequently made him ‘legatus’ (Cic., Fam., 6, 6, 10; 15, 15,
2).
M. Brutus joined Pompey in Macedonia before Pharsalia (Plut.,
Brut. 4; Aurel. Vic., Vir. Illus. 82, 5). After the battle
he went over to Caesar. Appian, 2, 146, makes the following
statement: ‘all the murderers, except Decimus alone, had been
taken prisoners from Pompey’s faction.’ The inaccuracy is similar
to that of Nicolaus.
[80] The emendation of Müller, καίπερ Καίσαρος has been followed
here; that of Piccolos is also good. The codex reading is
unintelligible and that of Dindorf is scarcely less so. He alters
ἑκάστου to ἕκαστον, but leaves the remainder intact.
[81] The leniency of Caesar was, of course, not entirely
attributable to altruistic motives, although from the tone of
Nicolaus one might infer that such was the case. Caesar explains
his policy in Cic., Att., 9, 7c.
[82] The claim of Brutus, that he was descended from Brutus the
first consul and Ahala the regicide, was generally accepted as a
fact both by historians and contemporary writers (Cic., Att., 13,
40, 1, ‘φιλοτέχνημα illud tuum, quod vidi in Parthenone, Ahalam
et Brutum,’ see Tyrrell and Purser, The Correspondence of Cicero,
vol. 5, p. 177, note 1; vol. 6, p. cv; App. 2, 112; Dio 44, 12;
Plut., Brut. 1; Suet., Caes., 80).
[83] Cassius and Brutus are, of course, the outstanding examples
of the type here referred to. For Caesar’s treatment of his
former opponents, see Plut., Caes. 57, and citations in note 79,
above.
[84] The allusion is perhaps to the enthronement of a statue
of Caesar in the temple of Quirinus. Cicero expressed much
indignation in referring to the matter (Cic., Att., 12, 45, 2;
13, 28, 3; Phil. 2, 43, 110; see also Dio 43, 45; Suet., Caes.,
76). Caesar was hailed further as ‘Iuppiter Iulius’ and a temple
was erected jointly to him and to ‘Clementia’ (App. 2, 106; Dio
44, 6; Plut., Caes., 57; less specific, Suet., Caes., 76; Flor.
2, 13, 91).
[85] The conspirators were pledged among themselves without
the usual formalities of either oaths or sacrifices, according
to Appian, 2, 114, and Plutarch, Brut. 12. Sacrifices were the
proper complement of oaths, but the attention which would have
been drawn by their performance would have been at once fatal to
the projected undertaking.
[86] The same incident is reported by the following authors:
Appian 2, 116; Dio 44, 18; Suetonius, Caes., 81; Plutarch,
Caes., 65; Velleius 2, 57; Florus 4, 2, 94. It is a noteworthy
fact that with the passage of time the statements with regard to
this occurrence become more positive. Nicolaus employs indirect
discourse, placing the responsibility on the writer used by him
as a source; all the other authors mention the matter as an
actual happening.
20. [87] On the occasion of the ‘ludi Victoriae Caesaris,’ held
July 20-30, 45 B.C. as a continuation of the ‘ludi’ of Sept. 46
(old calendar) a figure of ‘Victoria’ was borne in procession in
close proximity to an image of Caesar. The populace refrained
from applause, the cause being, according to Cicero, that
‘Victoria’ was in bad company, through the presence of Caesar’s
image (Cic., Att., 13, 44, 1).
[88] This is perhaps the most gratuitously extravagant statement
in the entire fragment of Nicolaus. His purpose is, as E. Meyer
suggests (Caesars Monarchie, p. 517) to place the blame for
Caesar’s monarchical aspirations upon his associates, some of
whom flattered him excessively while others deliberately urged
him on with the intention of making him ultimately an object of
general hatred. The same tone is exhibited by Dio, 44, 3, and
Plutarch, Caes., 57. Caesar was entirely well aware that he was
disliked, even by those whom he characterized as ‘easy going’:
‘Ego dubitem,’ Caesar is reported to have said, ‘quin _summo in
odio sim_, quom M. Cicero sedeat nec suo commodo me convenire
possit? Atqui si quisquam est facilis, hic est, tamen non dubito
quin _me male oderit_’ (Cic., Att., 14, 1, 2). Again, ‘Ego nunc
_tam sim stultus_ ut hunc ipsum facilem hominem putem mihi esse
amicum, cum tam diu sedens meum commodum exspectet?’ (Cic., Att.,
14, 2, 3).
[89] The ‘senatus consultum,’ enacted after the victory at
Munda, is also referred to by Dio 43, 45. It appears that Caesar
permitted the elections by magistrates to proceed nominally as
before, by popular vote, but that he was the actual determining
factor as to who should be elected (Dio 43, 47). Compare Appian
4, 91, Cassius’ alleged speech to his soldiers.
[90] Concerning Caesarion, called ‘Cyrus’ by Nicolaus, the son
of Caesar and Cleopatra, see Cic., Att., 14, 20, 2; Dio 47,
31; Suet., Caes., 52; Aug. 17; Plut., Caes., 49; Ant. 54. All
but Nicolaus acknowledge that he really was Caesar’s son, and
Nicolaus is unable to prove the falsity of the allegation. It
would have been extremely difficult for Caesar to have secured
the legitimizing of Caesarion because of the universal antipathy
in Rome toward Cleopatra and eastern institutions in general;
further, much as Caesar may have desired a natural heir, his
purpose could not best be served by Caesarion, who was an
infant when Caesar’s will was drawn, in comparison with his
great-nephew, then 18 years of age.
[91] Mention of Caesar’s intention of establishing an empire
in the East, with a capital at Alexandria or at Ilium is also
made by Suetonius, Caes., 79. Both he and Nicolaus tend toward
rejecting the idea as absurd; but the fact is significant that
in the summer of 48 B.C. Caesar granted freedom to Ilium (Strabo
13, 1, 27). R. Meyer (Kleine Schr. p. 467; Caesars Monarchie p.
521) thinks the plan entirely logical, and accepts the report as
plausible. It would have been far simpler for Caesar to retain
and augment his pseudo-divine attributes in the East than could
ever have been the case in Rome; at the same time, the rights and
privileges historically peculiar to Rome could have been served
by an independent city government. The same question arose in
Augustus’ time (Horace, Od., 3, 3).
[92] Compare Cicero’s remarks to Caesar concerning the statue on
the rostra (Cic., pro Deiot. 12, 34). Dio 44, 4 gives a confused
account of two statues having been erected on the rostra, one
intended to represent Caesar as savior of the citizens, and the
other as ‘rescuer of the city from siege;’ the appropriateness of
this latter attribute seems somewhat obscure.
[93] The full names of the tribunes were L. Caesetius Flavus and
C. Epidius Marullus (Suet., Caes., 79; Dio 44, 9).
[94] For the precedent of the temple of Concordia as a meeting
place for the senate, see Cicero, Cat., 3, 21; Phil. 2, 8, 19;
Sallust, Cat., 46; Plutarch, Cic., 19.
[95] The account of Nicolaus, involving banishment of the
tribunes, is at variance with the versions of Appian, 2, 108; 4,
93; Dio 44, 10; 46, 9; Suetonius, Caes., 79; Plutarch, Caes.,
61; Ant. 12; Livy, Epit., 116, all of whom concur in saying
that the tribunes were merely cast out of the senate, and not
sent into exile. It is shown by Cicero, Phil., 13, 15, 31, that
the tribunes were simply removed from office: ‘quid ergo, ut
Marullum, ut Caesetium a republica removeremus, eum consecuti
sumus?’ The term ‘a republica’ means ‘from public life’ and not
‘from the country;’ compare Velleius 2, 68.
[96] In a letter to Atticus (Cic., Att., 15, 44, 1) dated about
July 20, 45 B.C., Cicero alludes to the reported proposal of
Cotta that Caesar be made king in order that Parthia might be
subdued according to the terms of the Sibylline prophecy which
stated that Parthia would be proof against any but a king (Cic.,
Div., 2, 110). Compare also the passage, ‘munerum regiorum’
(regionum?) (Cic., Fam., 6, 19, 2; Tyrrell and Purser 5^2, p. 162
and note). On August 2, 45 B.C., Cicero actually speaks of Caesar
as ‘the king:’ ‘nisi viderem scire _regem_ me animi nihil habere’
(Cic., Att., 25, 37, 2). The episode of the diadem, involving
the tribunes Caesetius and Marullus, seems to have occurred in
January, 44 B.C. (Dio 44, 10: ‘later, when he was riding in from
Albanum;’ CIL 1, p. 461: ‘C. Iulius C.f.C.n. Caesar VI dict. IIII
ovans a. DCCIX ex monte Albano VII Kal. Febr.’).
21. [97] February 16 (CIL 1^2 p. 310, Commentarii diurni, ‘XV K.
Mart. Luper’). See also Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer,^2
p. 209.
[98] Mention of Licinius as being the first to present to Caesar
the diadem enclosed within a wreath is unique with Nicolaus.
Appian 2, 109; Dio 44, 11; Livy, Epit., 116; Velleius 2, 56, 4;
Plutarch, Caes., 60; Ant. 12, and Cicero, Phil., 2, 84-85; 3,
12, all concur in that they make Antony solely responsible for
having offered the crown to Caesar. Duttlinger, Untersuchungen
über den historischen Wert des βίος Καίσαρος, Heidelberg 1911,
endeavoring to align the account of Nicolaus with Cicero’s words:
‘Unde diadema? _non enim abjectum sustuleras_, sed attuleras
domo meditatum et cogitatum scelus’ (Cic., Phil., 2, 85) makes
the following assertion: ‘Diese Worte zeigen mit unumstösslicher
Sicherheit, dass Caesar schon einmal, bevor Antonius kam, das
Diadem von sich gewiesen hatte.’ A saner view is expressed
in the translation of the phrase by Halm-Laubmann, Ciceros
Ausgewählte Reden, vol. 6, p. 110: ‘du konntest es nicht von der
Strasse aufgehoben, auf der Strasse gefunden haben;’ thus no
suggestion of a former attempt by Licinius is to be read into
Cicero’s words. Cicero’s immediate purpose, of course, was to
bring discredit upon Antony for his actions on that day of the
Lupercalia, and hence any mention of Licinius on his part would
have been irrelevant to his case. Cicero’s Philippics therefore
afford no check upon the accuracy of Nicolaus’ account, which
rests here upon its merits of priority in comparison with the
versions of the other historians.
[99] It seems that the behavior of Lepidus at this juncture
was such as to attract attention; exactly what he did can not
be ascertained, but the indications are that he kept himself
strictly aloof. Cicero (Phil. 5, 38; 13, 17) wished to laud him,
contrasting him with Antony. At the place of the former citation
he says of him: ‘Semper ille populum Romanum liberum voluit
maximumque signum illo die dedit voluntatis et iudicii sui, cum
Antonio diadema Caesari imponente _se avertit_, gemituque et
maestitia declaravit quantum haberet odium servitutis,’ etc.
Cicero thus (though for a purpose) represents him as averse to
autocracy, while Nicolaus suggests that he was in sympathy with
Antony’s action.
[100] As tribune (Dio 44, 32).
[101] The report that Caesar was addressed directly by the crowd
as king, ‘Χαῖρε βασιλεῦ’ = ‘salve rex,’ is given by Nicolaus
alone. In this connection, however, see chap. 20, note 96, and
especially Cic., Att., 13, 37, 2, where Cicero refers to Caesar
as ‘rex’.
[102] In comparison with the motive of Antony given here, note
the ridiculous reasons presented in the speech of Fufius Calenus
as published by Dio (46, 17-19). There Antony is said to have
offered the diadem for the very purpose of shocking Caesar to
reason and thus to cause him to reject the proffered crown.
22. [103] O. E. Schmidt, Jahrb. für Class. Philol. Sup. 13, p. 682
suggests that this section should follow immediately upon the
words at the beginning of section 21: ‘τοιαῦτα μὲν δὴ τότε
ἐλέγετο,’ thus making a more connected account of the accusation
of the tribunes and their subsequent restitution. Since, however,
Nicolaus is about to write of the annual elections, his order of
relating these events is not unnatural.
Nicolaus declares that Cinna secured the recall of the tribunes
through a decree passed while Caesar was yet alive; Appian 2, 122
alludes to the tribunes as still being in exile on March 16, 44
B.C., when Brutus and Cassius descended from the Capitoline and
urged that they be recalled. E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie, p. 527,
n. 2, is inclined to favor the version of Nicolaus.
[104] The decree was that of the tribune L. Antonius, mentioned
by Cicero (Phil. 7, 16). Suetonius, Caes., 41 and Dio 43, 51
refer to the legal right of Caesar to appoint one half of the
total number of magistrates for 3 years in advance; at the
expiration of this period his return from his expedition against
the Parthians was to have been expected. The decree of Antonius
was enacted between December 10, 45 B.C., the day on which the
newly elected tribunes entered into office, and March 15, 44 B.C.
(see Sternkopf, Ciceros ausgewählte Reden, vol. 9, p. 33).
Appian, 2, 128; 2, 138, says that Caesar appointed magistrates
for 5 years in advance; Suetonius, Caes., 76, speaks of ‘several’
years; Nicolaus is corroborated by Cicero (Att. 14, 6, 2),
‘Etiamne consules et tribunos pl. in _biennium_ quos ille
voluit.’ See also Cic., Fam., 10, 32, 2. Among the historians,
Nicolaus alone names Pansa and Hirtius, Brutus and Plancus,
but Cicero speaks of the former pair as ‘consules designati’
in Philippic 3, 37 and 39, and of the latter pair as ‘consules
designati’ in Philippic 3, 38.
[105] Antony.
[106] For the behavior of Caesar when the senate approached him
to confer its honors upon him, see Appian 2, 107; Dio 44, 8;
Suetonius, Caes., 78; Plutarch, Caes., 60; Livy, Epit., 116;
Eutropius 6, 25; Zonaras 10, 11. Appian and Plutarch speak
of Caesar as seated on the rostra; Dio, Suetonius, and Livy
place him before the temple of Venus Genetrix. In the interest
of accuracy it is to be noted that both Appian and Plutarch
incorrectly refer to ‘consuls’ in the plural as being at the head
of the procession: ‘τῶν ὑπάτων ἡγουμένων’ and ‘προσιόντων δὲ τῶν
ὑπάτων.’
Excuses for Caesar’s failure to rise are offered by three of
the historians: Dio lays the blame upon an attack of diarrhoea,
Plutarch upon an attack of epilepsy, while Nicolaus, less
extravagantly, simply says that Caesar did not at first see the
throng because of his deep interest in his own undertaking.
More plausible are the suggested reasons of Suetonius: that L.
Cornelius Balbus dissuaded Caesar from rising (compare Plut.,
Caes., 60, end), or that C. Trebatius Testa urged him to rise and
thus displeased him.
[107] Reading συνόντες with the codex. Piccolos reads συγγνόντες,
and Dindorf συνέντες.
[108] See also Appian 2, 106, 134, 138; Dio 44, 4; 5, 50. After
Caesar’s death Antony had inscribed upon a statue of Caesar which
he placed on the rostra, ‘parenti optime merito’ (Cic., Fam., 12,
3, 1). Suetonius, Caes., 85 tells of the column erected in the
forum, similarly inscribed, ‘parenti patriae.’
[109] See Appian 2, 107, 109; Dio 44, 7. Caesar’s motive in
dismissing his guard was found to be difficult to explain by
those who afterward sought for causes. To many it could not but
seem almost suicidal negligence (Suet., Caes., 86); certainly his
course did not meet with the favor of his more prudent adherents:
‘laudandum experientia consilium est Pansae atque Hirti, qui
semper praedixerant Caesari ut principatum armis quaesitum armis
teneret’ (Vell. 2, 57, 1).
23. [110] As Pontifex Maximus, Caesar lived in the Regia, in the
Via Sacra.
[111] The bridge has been identified by M. E. Deutsch,
University of California Publications in Classical Philology,
vol. 2, pp. 267 ff. ‘Petronia amnis est in Tiberim perfluens,
quam magistratus auspicato transeunt cum in campo quid agere
volunt’ (Festus 250). This stream, which flowed westward from
the Quirinal, was accordingly bridged by a small wooden footway
from which one might easily have been pushed into the shallow
watercourse below. Suetonius also refers to a ‘pons’ but seems
erroneously to have supposed it was the ‘pons’ of the voting
place.
[112] The ‘Feriae Annae Perennae’ were celebrated on March 15
(CIL 1^2 p. 311; Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer,^2 pp.
147 and 241. See also Ovid, Fast., 3, 523; Macrobius, Sat., 1,
12, 6). Perhaps the reference is to the Quinquatrus of March 19
(Wissowa, op. cit., p. 144).
[113] Suetonius, Caes., 80, alone agrees with Nicolaus in
recounting the four tentative plans discussed by the conspirators
before it was decided that Caesar be killed in the senate on
March 15, but he is far less explicit. According to Appian, 2,
115, Caesar was to have set out for the East within four days of
that date; hence the conspirators must have felt that there was
no time to lose. The motions which Caesar wished to introduce at
this session of the senate referred to final preparations and
assignments before he departed for Parthia. Dio 44, 15, says
that Brutus and Cassius felt that the motion might be put that
Caesar be declared king in order to assure victory over the
Parthians in accordance with a Sibylline prophecy (see chap.
20, note 96), and since they could not vote for the measure,
from conviction, nor against it, from policy, they decided to
kill him before suspicion should become directed against
themselves. In this connection, see Appian 2, 113; Plutarch,
Brut., 10, where attempts have been made to reproduce the
supposed dialog between Brutus and Cassius on the subject.
24. [114] According to the Greek mode of orientation to the east,
which Nicolaus has in mind, the back of one sacrificing would be
kept toward the west. The Romans followed the Etruscan rule of
facing south, in which case the west, being on the right, would
not be an unfavorable quarter.
[115] The codex reading is ἐκέλευσε, obviously incorrect. Müller
emends to ἐθέλησε; Piccolos and Dindorf to ἐπένευσε. It has been
thought advisable to render here as if ἐκέλευε were written,
thus adhering more closely to the actual text. For the use of
the imperfect to denote attempted action, compare Hdt. 1, 68,
‘ἐμισθοῦτο παρ’ _οὐκ ἐκδιδόντος_ τὴν αὐλήν.’ (Godwin, G. M. T.
36).
[116] Literally, ‘he seemed to do something rather bold for one
holding his hands inside.’ Didot renders as though Caesar were
referred to as keeping his hands beneath his toga: ‘arrivé près
de César, qui tenait ses mains sous sa toge.’ It is scarcely
possible to derive such an interpretation from the Greek as
it stands. The translation ‘for a suppliant’ was suggested by
Plautus, Amph., 257, ‘velatis manibus orant, ignoscamus peccatum
suom.’ There ‘veiled hands’ (bearing fillets) are a mark of
supplication; ‘εἴσω τὰς χεῖρας ἔχοντος’ as applied to Cimber may
have a similar meaning, particularly since he is described as
feigning to intercede with Caesar for his brother; and Nicolaus
may not have understood the Latin expression (compare App. 2,
117; Suet., Caes., 82; Plut., Caes. 66; Brut. 17).
[117] Appian 2, 117; Suet., Caes., 82; Livy, Epit., 116; Florus
2, 13, 95; Zonaras 10, 11 D; Eutropius 6, 25; Valerius Maximus
4, 5, 6; Plutarch, Caes., 66, mention 23 wounds; Dio 44, 19,
speaks of ‘many’ wounds; Nicolaus alone gives the number as
35. O. E. Schmidt, Jahrb. für class. Philol., sup. 13, p. 674,
suggests that there may have been two traditions at the time of
Nicolaus, one involving 23 wounds, the other 35. This belief
is scarcely justifiable, since there is but one example of the
latter tradition, and Suetonius, whose account usually coincides
with that of Nicolaus, is here at variance. Piccolos, Nicolas de
Damas, Vie de César, p. 89 shows how the capitals Κ and Γ (23)
may have become corrupted to Ε and Λ (35). The error is possibly
due to the excerptor.