[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 52, 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 12 p. 310, Commentarii diurni, ‘XV K. Mart. Luper’). See also Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Römer,2 p. 209.