[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.