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).